Uncorroborated co-accused statement cannot sustain personal penalty without independent evidence of alleged excise wrongdoing.

Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the only adverse material was an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused director. The Tribunal accepted that the units were registered dealers, maintained records and invoices, and found no independent evidence that the goods were not supplied along with the invoices. In the absence of corroboration or other proof supporting the allegation, the statement alone was insufficient to establish culpability, and the revenue appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained on the basis of an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused.

Analysis: The appellate authority had found that the units were trading units registered with the department as dealers, that records and invoices were maintained, and that the only material against the respondent was the statement of a director of another unit. It held that, in the absence of independent corroboration or proof that the goods were not supplied along with the invoices, the statement by itself was insufficient to establish guilt or to justify penalty. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that view and noted that the revenue had not produced any evidence to support the original adjudication.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the revenue appeal was rejected.

---