Penalty under Rule 26(2) quashed for lack of evidence and non-compliance with Sections 9D and 14 of Central Excise Act

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the appellant for alleged fraudulent availment and passing on of Cenvat Credit. The tribunal held that the statutory requirements for admissibility of statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act were not met, as the mandatory procedure under Section 9D was not followed. The appellant was not found to have supplied goods to the manufacturers as alleged, and there was no evidence of mens rea or deliberate evasion. Additionally, the main noticee had settled the dispute under the SVLDRS scheme, precluding penalty on the appellant. The penalty demand was also barred by limitation due to absence of evidence of collusion or fraudulent intent. Consequently, the penalty order was unsustainable and was quashed.....