https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54589 Penalty on a registered dealer for issuing invoices for duty-paid goods without bringing them into the registered premises was held unsustainable. Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) applied only where wrong particulars were entered with intent to help a buyer claim inadmissible duty credit, and no such allegation was made because the invoices reflected the actual duty paid. Rule 209A also could not apply, as there was no basis to infer liability to confiscation in respect of duty-paid goods sold at the same duty amount. The delayed notice and regular monthly returns further supported the absence of a penalty basis. en-us Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:11:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54589 Penalty on a registered dealer for issuing invoices for duty-paid goods without bringing them into the registered premises was held unsustainable. Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) applied only where wrong particulars were entered with intent to help a buyer claim inadmissible duty credit, and no such allegation was made because the invoices reflected the actual duty paid. Rule 209A also could not apply, as there was no basis to infer liability to confiscation in respect of duty-paid goods sold at the same duty amount. The delayed notice and regular monthly returns further supported the absence of a penalty basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54589