https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34866 Modvat credit was denied where invoices were unsupported by actual receipt of inputs, and evidence showed only paper transactions, including nonexistent job-worker premises, inculpatory statements, and circulation of invoices without movement of goods. The retractions were rejected as inconsistent and not enough to displace the surrounding material, so the demand against the manufacturer was upheld. Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable against the partner, export buyer and authorised signatory because mere issuance of invoices, without proof of direct illicit handling, sale, or removal of goods, was insufficient. The connected penalties were set aside. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34866 Modvat credit was denied where invoices were unsupported by actual receipt of inputs, and evidence showed only paper transactions, including nonexistent job-worker premises, inculpatory statements, and circulation of invoices without movement of goods. The retractions were rejected as inconsistent and not enough to displace the surrounding material, so the demand against the manufacturer was upheld. Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable against the partner, export buyer and authorised signatory because mere issuance of invoices, without proof of direct illicit handling, sale, or removal of goods, was insufficient. The connected penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34866