https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750602 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed revenue's appeal against dealers and transporters who facilitated fraudulent Cenvat credit by issuing invoices without actual goods dispatch. The tribunal held that penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 was imposable even before Rule 26(2) amendment in 2007, as dealers violated Rule 9 by improper accounting and issuing Cenvatable invoices with intent to evade duty. Transporters were liable under Rule 26 for confirming non-existent transportation. The original order dropping penalties was modified, directing penalty imposition commensurate with offences committed. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750602 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed revenue's appeal against dealers and transporters who facilitated fraudulent Cenvat credit by issuing invoices without actual goods dispatch. The tribunal held that penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 was imposable even before Rule 26(2) amendment in 2007, as dealers violated Rule 9 by improper accounting and issuing Cenvatable invoices with intent to evade duty. Transporters were liable under Rule 26 for confirming non-existent transportation. The original order dropping penalties was modified, directing penalty imposition commensurate with offences committed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750602