https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125918 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules cannot be sustained against an employee merely because he was the authorised signatory of the company. The order did not record any specific role, conscious involvement, or mala fide conduct by the appellant in the alleged clandestine removal, and it also did not show that he personally benefited from the activity. Acting under company instructions, without attribution of culpable participation, was insufficient to justify personal penalty. The penalty was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125918 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules cannot be sustained against an employee merely because he was the authorised signatory of the company. The order did not record any specific role, conscious involvement, or mala fide conduct by the appellant in the alleged clandestine removal, and it also did not show that he personally benefited from the activity. Acting under company instructions, without attribution of culpable participation, was insufficient to justify personal penalty. The penalty was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125918