https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788769 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was sustained where the evidence showed issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods and participation in transactions facilitating wrongful CENVAT credit. The record indicated doubtful transport material, lack of basic infrastructure at the premises, and surrounding circumstances inconsistent with genuine cutting activity, supporting the finding of liability. However, the noticee's role was treated as limited, so the penalty was considered excessive in quantum. The Tribunal therefore upheld the penalty in principle but reduced it substantially from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:57:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788769 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was sustained where the evidence showed issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods and participation in transactions facilitating wrongful CENVAT credit. The record indicated doubtful transport material, lack of basic infrastructure at the premises, and surrounding circumstances inconsistent with genuine cutting activity, supporting the finding of liability. However, the noticee's role was treated as limited, so the penalty was considered excessive in quantum. The Tribunal therefore upheld the penalty in principle but reduced it substantially from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788769