Penalties under Central Excise Rules fail where evidence is uncorroborated and mitigating conduct undermines alleged evasion.

Penalties under Rule 173-Q(1) and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were found unsustainable where the duty demand had already been paid and the record did not adequately establish deliberate evasion. The Tribunal noted mitigating circumstances, including the appellants' disclosure of the matter to the department and cooperation during verification. It also held that the production manager's statement was insufficiently tested and uncorroborated, and the surrounding evidence did not satisfactorily prove the managing director's presence or involvement at the relevant time. On that evidentiary basis, the penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalties imposed under Rule 173-Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were sustainable on the facts and evidence available.

Analysis: The duty demand had already been paid, and the dispute before the Tribunal was confined to the penalties. The record showed mitigating circumstances, including the appellants' conduct in bringing the matter to the department's notice and cooperating with verification. The Department relied substantially on the statement of the production manager, but that statement was not sufficiently tested or corroborated, and the surrounding evidence did not satisfactorily establish deliberate evasion or the presence and involvement of the appellant managing director at the relevant time. In these circumstances, the evidentiary basis for sustaining the penalties was found inadequate.

Conclusion: The penalties were not justified and were set aside in favour of the appellants.

---