https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344670 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as it stood before insertion of sub-rule (2) on 1 March 2007, did not extend to issuance of fake invoices or abetment where no excisable goods were delivered or involved. The pre-amendment provision was confined to persons concerned with excisable goods liable to confiscation, so penal liability could not be fastened for invoice-based wrongful availment of Cenvat credit during the earlier period. The later amendment specifically brought such conduct within the rule, but it was not applicable retrospectively. Accordingly, the penalty under the unamended rule was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 01 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344670 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as it stood before insertion of sub-rule (2) on 1 March 2007, did not extend to issuance of fake invoices or abetment where no excisable goods were delivered or involved. The pre-amendment provision was confined to persons concerned with excisable goods liable to confiscation, so penal liability could not be fastened for invoice-based wrongful availment of Cenvat credit during the earlier period. The later amendment specifically brought such conduct within the rule, but it was not applicable retrospectively. Accordingly, the penalty under the unamended rule was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344670