https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779324 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25(1) read with Section 11AC, holding it unsustainable. The Tribunal found the allegation of paper transactions should, if proved, attract penalty under Rule 26(2) rather than Rule 25(1), and noted precedent restricting use of Rule 25(1) in such facts. The investigation was held to be defective and did not establish non-supply of excisable goods; records indicated goods were supplied to the purchaser and payments were received through banking channels. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Oct 2025 08:22:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779324 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25(1) read with Section 11AC, holding it unsustainable. The Tribunal found the allegation of paper transactions should, if proved, attract penalty under Rule 26(2) rather than Rule 25(1), and noted precedent restricting use of Rule 25(1) in such facts. The investigation was held to be defective and did not establish non-supply of excisable goods; records indicated goods were supplied to the purchaser and payments were received through banking channels. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779324