https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220789 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant's knowledge of the shortage in the factory. Despite being a director, the appellant's role in finance and legal affairs did not establish his involvement in day-to-day operations or knowledge of the shortage. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 26 requires knowledge for imposing penalties, ultimately leading to the decision to allow the appeal and overturn the penalty. en-us Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220789 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant's knowledge of the shortage in the factory. Despite being a director, the appellant's role in finance and legal affairs did not establish his involvement in day-to-day operations or knowledge of the shortage. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 26 requires knowledge for imposing penalties, ultimately leading to the decision to allow the appeal and overturn the penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220789