https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765188 Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained for alleged conduct that occurred before the sub-rule was inserted, because penal provisions do not operate retrospectively absent clear legislative intent. Penalty under Rule 25 was also unsustainable since the record did not show that the appellants removed, stored, manufactured, or otherwise dealt with goods liable to confiscation; supplying documents for credit purposes was insufficient to satisfy Rule 25. The impugned penalties were therefore set aside, and the appeals succeeded. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jan 2025 12:24:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765188 Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained for alleged conduct that occurred before the sub-rule was inserted, because penal provisions do not operate retrospectively absent clear legislative intent. Penalty under Rule 25 was also unsustainable since the record did not show that the appellants removed, stored, manufactured, or otherwise dealt with goods liable to confiscation; supplying documents for credit purposes was insufficient to satisfy Rule 25. The impugned penalties were therefore set aside, and the appeals succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765188