https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410762 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable where the allegations of aiding undervaluation, the agreement terms, investigation material and statements were materially the same as in earlier cases involving the same assessee. The Tribunal followed its prior decisions in comparable valuation disputes, in which the demand and penalty had already been set aside, and treated the present controversy as covered by the same reasoning. On that basis, the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Aug 2021 08:53:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410762 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable where the allegations of aiding undervaluation, the agreement terms, investigation material and statements were materially the same as in earlier cases involving the same assessee. The Tribunal followed its prior decisions in comparable valuation disputes, in which the demand and penalty had already been set aside, and treated the present controversy as covered by the same reasoning. On that basis, the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410762