https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99428 Penalty under Rule 209A cannot be sustained against a Managing Director unless there is independent evidence of his knowing involvement in evasion or clandestine clearance of excisable goods. A penalty based only on the company's alleged clearances is insufficient where personal liability has not been separately established. The adjudicating authority must also consider material relevant to non-involvement, including documents showing transfer or lease of the unit and any connected criminal acquittal, before affirming such penalty. The order therefore set aside the penalty and remanded the matter for de novo consideration after hearing the appellant. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:53:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99428 Penalty under Rule 209A cannot be sustained against a Managing Director unless there is independent evidence of his knowing involvement in evasion or clandestine clearance of excisable goods. A penalty based only on the company's alleged clearances is insufficient where personal liability has not been separately established. The adjudicating authority must also consider material relevant to non-involvement, including documents showing transfer or lease of the unit and any connected criminal acquittal, before affirming such penalty. The order therefore set aside the penalty and remanded the matter for de novo consideration after hearing the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99428