https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111592 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires concrete evidence of conscious involvement in the offence; mere assumptions, family relationship with the proprietor, or general allegations of aiding and abetting are insufficient. The record did not show any specific role or active participation by the first appellant, and there was likewise no direct evidence connecting the second appellant to the alleged clandestine removal. On that basis, the penalty was held unsustainable against both appellants and was set aside. en-us Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:16:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111592 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires concrete evidence of conscious involvement in the offence; mere assumptions, family relationship with the proprietor, or general allegations of aiding and abetting are insufficient. The record did not show any specific role or active participation by the first appellant, and there was likewise no direct evidence connecting the second appellant to the alleged clandestine removal. On that basis, the penalty was held unsustainable against both appellants and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111592