https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120049 Penalty on a company director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was unsustainable because the record showed no specific act of dealing with excisable goods, no allegation of personal involvement, and no evidence of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. Mere designation as director or general control of the unit was insufficient without proof of mens rea or direct participation. The penalty was therefore set aside and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:33:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120049 Penalty on a company director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was unsustainable because the record showed no specific act of dealing with excisable goods, no allegation of personal involvement, and no evidence of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. Mere designation as director or general control of the unit was insufficient without proof of mens rea or direct participation. The penalty was therefore set aside and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120049