https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293046 Multiple appellants appealed penalties under Rule 25 or 26 of the Central Excise Rules for issuing cenvatable invoices without goods. Fictitious firms were involved, allowing inadmissible cenvat credit. While appellants admitted to issuing invoices without goods, lack of investigations with the firms' directors raised doubts. Discrepancies in statements were noted. The Tribunal, citing past cases, found faults in investigations and lack of evidence on firms' invoice issuance. Due to prior allowance of cenvat credit and insufficient evidence, penalties were overturned, emphasizing the need for proper evidence before imposing penalties under the Central Excise Rules. en-us Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293046 Multiple appellants appealed penalties under Rule 25 or 26 of the Central Excise Rules for issuing cenvatable invoices without goods. Fictitious firms were involved, allowing inadmissible cenvat credit. While appellants admitted to issuing invoices without goods, lack of investigations with the firms' directors raised doubts. Discrepancies in statements were noted. The Tribunal, citing past cases, found faults in investigations and lack of evidence on firms' invoice issuance. Due to prior allowance of cenvat credit and insufficient evidence, penalties were overturned, emphasizing the need for proper evidence before imposing penalties under the Central Excise Rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293046