Corroboration is essential for penalty: unverified signatures and unreliable admissions could not sustain central excise liability.

Penalty under Rule 209A read with Rule 225 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the Revenue relied only on an alleged statement that the appellant or his representative had signed joint price declarations. The signatures on the declarations did not match the specimen signatures on record, no authorisation letter or identifying particulars of the signatory were produced, and no effective effort was made to identify or examine the actual signatory. The alleged admission was treated as unreliable because of overwriting and the absence of independent corroboration. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the appellant's involvement in undervaluation and duty evasion was not established, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 209A read with Rule 225 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable on the allegation that he signed or authorised false joint price declarations and thereby aided undervaluation and evasion of duty.

Analysis: The only basis for fastening liability on the appellant was the alleged admission in his statement that he or his representative had signed the joint declarations. The signatures on the price declarations did not match the appellant's signatures on record, no authorisation letter or identifying particulars of the signatory were produced, and the investigating agency made no meaningful effort to identify or examine the actual signatory or collect the best available evidence. The alleged admission was found to be unreliable in view of the overwritings and the lack of independent corroboration. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the Revenue failed to establish the appellant's involvement in the alleged evasion.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and was set aside; the appeal was allowed.

---