https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119852 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that the person was concerned with excisable goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. A brand owner that merely supplied empty cartons bearing its brand name to manufacturers was not shown to have instigated any wrongful SSI exemption claim or to have played a sufficient role in the alleged evasion. In the absence of evidence of knowledge, reason to believe, or active involvement in the offending transaction, the penalty was held unsustainable and relief was granted. en-us Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:47:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119852 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that the person was concerned with excisable goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. A brand owner that merely supplied empty cartons bearing its brand name to manufacturers was not shown to have instigated any wrongful SSI exemption claim or to have played a sufficient role in the alleged evasion. In the absence of evidence of knowledge, reason to believe, or active involvement in the offending transaction, the penalty was held unsustainable and relief was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119852