https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775639 The CESTAT AHMEDABAD held that although the appellant company devised a scheme to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit through improper documents, the penalty under Rule 26(1) CER, 2002 was not applicable as confiscation was not proposed. Regarding penalty under Rule 26(2), the authority failed to establish that the appellants issued or abetted issuance of excise duty invoices without delivery of goods or facilitated ineligible benefits. The statements of the individuals involved did not demonstrate their role in such activities. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants, modifying the impugned order accordingly. en-us Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:41:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775639 The CESTAT AHMEDABAD held that although the appellant company devised a scheme to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit through improper documents, the penalty under Rule 26(1) CER, 2002 was not applicable as confiscation was not proposed. Regarding penalty under Rule 26(2), the authority failed to establish that the appellants issued or abetted issuance of excise duty invoices without delivery of goods or facilitated ineligible benefits. The statements of the individuals involved did not demonstrate their role in such activities. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants, modifying the impugned order accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775639