https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244369 The correct appellant challenging the penalty was identified as Shri Parmod Kumar, correcting initial confusion with M/s. G. Tex Dyeing & Printing Mills Ltd. Appeal No. E/612/2005 was dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order. The present appellant, an authorized signatory, was accused of failing to record transactions, but evidence of criminal intent was lacking. The judgment stressed the need for concrete evidence to support claims of criminal intent, leading to the waiver of the penalty imposed on the appellant due to insufficient proof of direct involvement in creating fake documents. The appeal was allowed based on the lack of substantial evidence. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244369 The correct appellant challenging the penalty was identified as Shri Parmod Kumar, correcting initial confusion with M/s. G. Tex Dyeing & Printing Mills Ltd. Appeal No. E/612/2005 was dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order. The present appellant, an authorized signatory, was accused of failing to record transactions, but evidence of criminal intent was lacking. The judgment stressed the need for concrete evidence to support claims of criminal intent, leading to the waiver of the penalty imposed on the appellant due to insufficient proof of direct involvement in creating fake documents. The appeal was allowed based on the lack of substantial evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244369