https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115350 Recovery of a penalty imposed under Section 209A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not stayed where the record indicated the Managing Director could not plausibly deny knowledge of the under-valuation pattern, depot sales at a higher price, and the resulting duty implication. The adjudicating authority had treated that knowledge as sufficient to sustain the penalty for goods liable to confiscation, and no acceptable ground was shown to justify interim protection. The request for stay was therefore refused and the appellant was required to pre-deposit the penalty. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 May 2012 12:58:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115350 Recovery of a penalty imposed under Section 209A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not stayed where the record indicated the Managing Director could not plausibly deny knowledge of the under-valuation pattern, depot sales at a higher price, and the resulting duty implication. The adjudicating authority had treated that knowledge as sufficient to sustain the penalty for goods liable to confiscation, and no acceptable ground was shown to justify interim protection. The request for stay was therefore refused and the appellant was required to pre-deposit the penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115350