https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756032 CESTAT NEW DELHI set aside penalty of Rs.3,63,778/- imposed under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 against appellant. Case involved allegations that second stage dealers issued cenvatable invoices without delivering goods to main noticee. Commissioner (Appeals) had categorically found that main noticee actually received goods after duty payment. Department accepted these findings without appeal. CESTAT held that when cenvat credit demand itself is not maintainable, penalty imposition lacks justification. Following precedent in Drolia Electrosteel case involving identical situation, Tribunal allowed appeal and set aside impugned order. en-us Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756032 CESTAT NEW DELHI set aside penalty of Rs.3,63,778/- imposed under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 against appellant. Case involved allegations that second stage dealers issued cenvatable invoices without delivering goods to main noticee. Commissioner (Appeals) had categorically found that main noticee actually received goods after duty payment. Department accepted these findings without appeal. CESTAT held that when cenvat credit demand itself is not maintainable, penalty imposition lacks justification. Following precedent in Drolia Electrosteel case involving identical situation, Tribunal allowed appeal and set aside impugned order. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756032