https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209836 Liability to penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was maintained against a director where the manufacturer had been found to have made clandestine removals and had accepted the duty liability. The appellant did not contest the applicability of penalty, but sought reduction because duty, interest and a substantial part of the penalty had already been paid by the manufacturing unit. Taking a lenient view on the facts and prior deposit, the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 12,500 while otherwise rejecting the appeal and sustaining the finding of liability. en-us Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209836 Liability to penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was maintained against a director where the manufacturer had been found to have made clandestine removals and had accepted the duty liability. The appellant did not contest the applicability of penalty, but sought reduction because duty, interest and a substantial part of the penalty had already been paid by the manufacturing unit. Taking a lenient view on the facts and prior deposit, the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 12,500 while otherwise rejecting the appeal and sustaining the finding of liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209836