https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387470 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on a partnership firm involved in fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit through issuance of invoices without actual supply of material. The appellant's argument that as a partnership firm, it could not be penalized under Rule 26(2 was rejected, with the Tribunal reducing the penalty from Rs. 22.00 lakhs to Rs. 5.00 lakhs. The decision emphasized that legal entities like firms fall under the definition of "person" for penalty purposes, and strict adherence to excise rules is crucial to prevent fraudulent practices in indirect taxation. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387470 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on a partnership firm involved in fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit through issuance of invoices without actual supply of material. The appellant's argument that as a partnership firm, it could not be penalized under Rule 26(2 was rejected, with the Tribunal reducing the penalty from Rs. 22.00 lakhs to Rs. 5.00 lakhs. The decision emphasized that legal entities like firms fall under the definition of "person" for penalty purposes, and strict adherence to excise rules is crucial to prevent fraudulent practices in indirect taxation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387470