https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96215 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable because the person concerned, on the basis of his own admissions and surrounding evidence, was shown to have actively facilitated evasion of excise duty through undervaluation and misdescription of goods. His involvement in managing the company's affairs and in the sale and clearance of goods through firms floated by him supported abetment, so the penalty was upheld. The challenge based on natural justice also failed because there was no material showing withholding of documents or denial of hearing, and the record showed several opportunities to defend the proceedings. The penalty order was upheld in full. en-us Tue, 29 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:13:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96215 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable because the person concerned, on the basis of his own admissions and surrounding evidence, was shown to have actively facilitated evasion of excise duty through undervaluation and misdescription of goods. His involvement in managing the company's affairs and in the sale and clearance of goods through firms floated by him supported abetment, so the penalty was upheld. The challenge based on natural justice also failed because there was no material showing withholding of documents or denial of hearing, and the record showed several opportunities to defend the proceedings. The penalty order was upheld in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96215