https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775066 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appellant's challenge against penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for alleged fraudulent Cenvat Credit passing and wrongful availment by iron and steel manufacturers. The tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act cannot be relied upon without following Section 9D requirements, which are mandatory. The appellant's request to cross-examine a witness was declined, violating statutory admissibility requirements. The tribunal found no evidence of mens rea or deliberate defiance of law by the appellant. Additionally, since the main noticee had settled the dispute under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 and received discharge certificate, no penalty could be imposed on co-noticees including the appellant per clarificatory circular. The tribunal also ruled the penalty was time-barred as no evidence showed collusion with fraudulent parties for duty evasion. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:47:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775066 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appellant's challenge against penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for alleged fraudulent Cenvat Credit passing and wrongful availment by iron and steel manufacturers. The tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act cannot be relied upon without following Section 9D requirements, which are mandatory. The appellant's request to cross-examine a witness was declined, violating statutory admissibility requirements. The tribunal found no evidence of mens rea or deliberate defiance of law by the appellant. Additionally, since the main noticee had settled the dispute under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 and received discharge certificate, no penalty could be imposed on co-noticees including the appellant per clarificatory circular. The tribunal also ruled the penalty was time-barred as no evidence showed collusion with fraudulent parties for duty evasion. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775066