https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226181 A paid employee can be penalised under Rule 26 where the evidence shows knowledge of clandestine clearance of excisable goods and cash-based removals, and the role is not limited to routine instructions from superiors. Mere employment status and absence from policy-making do not bar penalty if active awareness and participation are established. The extent of involvement remains relevant to quantum, and mitigation may be reflected by reducing the penalty where the principal offender's penalty has already been reduced under Section 11AC. Penalty was therefore upheld, but reduced to Rs. 25,000. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:15:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226181 A paid employee can be penalised under Rule 26 where the evidence shows knowledge of clandestine clearance of excisable goods and cash-based removals, and the role is not limited to routine instructions from superiors. Mere employment status and absence from policy-making do not bar penalty if active awareness and participation are established. The extent of involvement remains relevant to quantum, and mitigation may be reflected by reducing the penalty where the principal offender's penalty has already been reduced under Section 11AC. Penalty was therefore upheld, but reduced to Rs. 25,000. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226181