https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76143 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was found unsustainable against a company director where the record did not establish knowledge of, or material participation in, the alleged clandestine removal. The shortage was noticed on stock verification, duty was deposited by the company, and the company had already faced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of evidence linking the director to the removal or shortage, separate personal penalty was not justified and was set aside. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76143 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was found unsustainable against a company director where the record did not establish knowledge of, or material participation in, the alleged clandestine removal. The shortage was noticed on stock verification, duty was deposited by the company, and the company had already faced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of evidence linking the director to the removal or shortage, separate personal penalty was not justified and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76143