https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35030 Penalty for issuing invoices without delivery of goods for the 1990-91 period was found unsustainable because the later-amended Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, covering such conduct, was inserted only by Notification No. 8/2007-C.E. (N.T.) and could not govern an earlier period. The alleged contravention had been proceeded against under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but the Tribunal held that the subsequent provision had no retrospective application. It also noted that an identical issue for another period had already been decided in the respondents' favour, so the Revenue's appeal was rejected. en-us Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35030 Penalty for issuing invoices without delivery of goods for the 1990-91 period was found unsustainable because the later-amended Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, covering such conduct, was inserted only by Notification No. 8/2007-C.E. (N.T.) and could not govern an earlier period. The alleged contravention had been proceeded against under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but the Tribunal held that the subsequent provision had no retrospective application. It also noted that an identical issue for another period had already been decided in the respondents' favour, so the Revenue's appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35030