https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107791 Rule 209A penalties require proof that the person dealt with excisable goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation; on the record, such knowledge or a specific link to confiscable goods was not established against the company's executives, so the penalties were not sustainable. The Modvat demand, the company's penalties, and invocation of the extended period under Section 11A also failed because the company had disclosed its trading activity, followed the relevant movement practice, and the record showed procedural irregularities rather than suppression, deliberate misconduct, or a legally supportable basis for the larger demand. The impugned order was set aside in full, and relief was granted to the assessee and connected appellants. en-us Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:28:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107791 Rule 209A penalties require proof that the person dealt with excisable goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation; on the record, such knowledge or a specific link to confiscable goods was not established against the company's executives, so the penalties were not sustainable. The Modvat demand, the company's penalties, and invocation of the extended period under Section 11A also failed because the company had disclosed its trading activity, followed the relevant movement practice, and the record showed procedural irregularities rather than suppression, deliberate misconduct, or a legally supportable basis for the larger demand. The impugned order was set aside in full, and relief was granted to the assessee and connected appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107791