https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760292 CESTAT Chandigarh set aside penalty under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on appellant for allegedly availing CENVAT credit on fake invoices. Tribunal held the matter was res integra as previously decided that appellant actually received raw materials and legitimately availed CENVAT credit. Since demand against principal appellant was unsustainable, penalty demand also failed. Additionally, Rule 26(2) did not exist during relevant period, coming into force only from 11.05.2007. Appeal allowed and impugned order set aside. en-us Fri, 11 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760292 CESTAT Chandigarh set aside penalty under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on appellant for allegedly availing CENVAT credit on fake invoices. Tribunal held the matter was res integra as previously decided that appellant actually received raw materials and legitimately availed CENVAT credit. Since demand against principal appellant was unsustainable, penalty demand also failed. Additionally, Rule 26(2) did not exist during relevant period, coming into force only from 11.05.2007. Appeal allowed and impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760292