https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83395 A personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the department relied mainly on statements that were not tested by cross-examination. The principal transport-company witness did not implicate the noticee in his earliest statement and later retracted the incriminating version, while no independent evidence linked the noticee to removal or purchase of non-duty paid goods. The alleged railway-station transaction was also unsupported by surviving material. In a penalty proceeding, the department had to prove the charge with credible evidence, and the failure to do so entitled the noticee to relief. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:04:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83395 A personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the department relied mainly on statements that were not tested by cross-examination. The principal transport-company witness did not implicate the noticee in his earliest statement and later retracted the incriminating version, while no independent evidence linked the noticee to removal or purchase of non-duty paid goods. The alleged railway-station transaction was also unsupported by surviving material. In a penalty proceeding, the department had to prove the charge with credible evidence, and the failure to do so entitled the noticee to relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83395