https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107864 Statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 admitted participation in documentary transactions designed to that nylon filament yarn had moved to the recipient unit at nil duty, and the record did not establish any effective retraction before the adjudicating authority. Supporting evidence included confirmation of forged signatures by the concerned officer, so the conduct was treated as fraudulent and liable to penalty under the provisions invoked. The penalty was sustained on merits, but the quantum was found excessive because no penalty had been proposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the maximum penalty under Rule 198 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was nominal; the penalty was therefore reduced. en-us Wed, 28 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:08:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107864 Statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 admitted participation in documentary transactions designed to that nylon filament yarn had moved to the recipient unit at nil duty, and the record did not establish any effective retraction before the adjudicating authority. Supporting evidence included confirmation of forged signatures by the concerned officer, so the conduct was treated as fraudulent and liable to penalty under the provisions invoked. The penalty was sustained on merits, but the quantum was found excessive because no penalty had been proposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the maximum penalty under Rule 198 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was nominal; the penalty was therefore reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107864