https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30251 Territorial jurisdiction in central excise penalty proceedings depends on the place where the offence is committed, so the Ludhiana adjudicating authority was competent to act where irregular Cenvat credit was availed on fake invoices. The objection that the penalty was extra-jurisdictional was rejected. Penalty under Rule 26 was also held maintainable against a partnership firm, on the settled principle that the firm can be proceeded against in such penalty proceedings where the provision permits action against a person responsible for the offence. The challenge to penalty on the ground that it was imposed on the firm was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits. en-us Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30251 Territorial jurisdiction in central excise penalty proceedings depends on the place where the offence is committed, so the Ludhiana adjudicating authority was competent to act where irregular Cenvat credit was availed on fake invoices. The objection that the penalty was extra-jurisdictional was rejected. Penalty under Rule 26 was also held maintainable against a partnership firm, on the settled principle that the firm can be proceeded against in such penalty proceedings where the provision permits action against a person responsible for the offence. The challenge to penalty on the ground that it was imposed on the firm was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30251