https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126559 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was sustained against a director where his own statements admitted shortages, removal of excisable goods without invoices or duty payment, and later confirmed clandestine clearance of iron and steel scrap for cash in the open market. The plea that he was not an active director and was only named because he lived near the factory was rejected because no contemporaneous disclosure was made to investigators and the record did not show that he was uninvolved in the company's day-to-day affairs during the relevant period. The appeal against the penalty was rejected. en-us Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:22:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126559 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was sustained against a director where his own statements admitted shortages, removal of excisable goods without invoices or duty payment, and later confirmed clandestine clearance of iron and steel scrap for cash in the open market. The plea that he was not an active director and was only named because he lived near the factory was rejected because no contemporaneous disclosure was made to investigators and the record did not show that he was uninvolved in the company's day-to-day affairs during the relevant period. The appeal against the penalty was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126559