https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202359 The Tribunal modified the Commissioner's order by restoring a penalty on the respondent firm under the Cenvat Credit Rules but rejected the appeal seeking restoration of the penalty on the manager. The decision was based on the lack of specific findings attributing knowledge or intention to evade duty payment to the manager. The respondent was held liable for a penalty due to irregular account maintenance, while the penalties imposed by the original authority were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of corroboration for clandestine removal and payment of duty before the show cause notice. en-us Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202359 The Tribunal modified the Commissioner's order by restoring a penalty on the respondent firm under the Cenvat Credit Rules but rejected the appeal seeking restoration of the penalty on the manager. The decision was based on the lack of specific findings attributing knowledge or intention to evade duty payment to the manager. The respondent was held liable for a penalty due to irregular account maintenance, while the penalties imposed by the original authority were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of corroboration for clandestine removal and payment of duty before the show cause notice. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202359