https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76762 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 requires proof that a person dealt with excisable goods by acquisition, transport, concealment, sale, purchase or other dealing, knowing or having reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. Mere recovery of documents from a vehicle, without a clear nexus to the alleged evasion or the impugned goods, was insufficient. The appellant's status as Managing Director alone did not establish conscious involvement. Applying the earlier Rule 209A interpretation, the Tribunal held that knowledge-based participation was not proved and the penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76762 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 requires proof that a person dealt with excisable goods by acquisition, transport, concealment, sale, purchase or other dealing, knowing or having reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. Mere recovery of documents from a vehicle, without a clear nexus to the alleged evasion or the impugned goods, was insufficient. The appellant's status as Managing Director alone did not establish conscious involvement. Applying the earlier Rule 209A interpretation, the Tribunal held that knowledge-based participation was not proved and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76762