https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425158 The penalty of Rs. 3 Lakh imposed on a transporter for allegedly transporting goods linked to fraudulent credit availed by another company was set aside. The Member determined that the penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was unjustified as the goods were duty paid and not liable for confiscation, rendering the penalty unsustainable. Despite the transporter's actions falling under an amended rule, the Member emphasized that the rule in force during the relevant period did not cover such scenarios. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the transporter, highlighting the importance of a precise interpretation of the applicable rules. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jul 2022 09:14:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425158 The penalty of Rs. 3 Lakh imposed on a transporter for allegedly transporting goods linked to fraudulent credit availed by another company was set aside. The Member determined that the penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was unjustified as the goods were duty paid and not liable for confiscation, rendering the penalty unsustainable. Despite the transporter's actions falling under an amended rule, the Member emphasized that the rule in force during the relevant period did not cover such scenarios. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the transporter, highlighting the importance of a precise interpretation of the applicable rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425158