<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (8) TMI 1854 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471121</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for issuing excise invoices without delivery of goods requires the factual conditions of that provision to be established. Where no goods were available or involved, invoices allegedly enabled recipients to avail CENVAT credit but did not provide the factual foundation for penal action under the invoked rule. Applying an earlier decision concerning the same appellant, the penalty was not imposable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 20:33:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=918355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1854 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471121</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for issuing excise invoices without delivery of goods requires the factual conditions of that provision to be established. Where no goods were available or involved, invoices allegedly enabled recipients to avail CENVAT credit but did not provide the factual foundation for penal action under the invoked rule. Applying an earlier decision concerning the same appellant, the penalty was not imposable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471121</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>