https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120896 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depends on proof of knowledge and participation in the evasion. A whole-time director was found liable because the evidence showed that he led business affairs, handled banking and import matters, and ly ated in transactions leading to wrongful availment of Modvat credit; the penalty was therefore upheld, though reduced on account of limited means. By contrast, penalty against the managing director was set aside because the findings themselves showed he was not involved in day-to-day running of the business and his knowledge of the offence was not established. The document states that penalty cannot be sustained without evidence of involvement in the offence. en-us Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:33:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120896 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depends on proof of knowledge and participation in the evasion. A whole-time director was found liable because the evidence showed that he led business affairs, handled banking and import matters, and ly ated in transactions leading to wrongful availment of Modvat credit; the penalty was therefore upheld, though reduced on account of limited means. By contrast, penalty against the managing director was set aside because the findings themselves showed he was not involved in day-to-day running of the business and his knowledge of the offence was not established. The document states that penalty cannot be sustained without evidence of involvement in the offence. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120896