https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255012 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in the context of identical allegations against co-noticees after the principal noticee had already been granted immunity for the same transaction. The analysis applied parity and equity, noting that the adjudicating authority itself had treated a further penalty for the same cause of action as impermissible. On that basis, differential treatment of co-noticees was not justified, and the penalty on the appellants was set aside. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2015 10:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255012 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in the context of identical allegations against co-noticees after the principal noticee had already been granted immunity for the same transaction. The analysis applied parity and equity, noting that the adjudicating authority itself had treated a further penalty for the same cause of action as impermissible. On that basis, differential treatment of co-noticees was not justified, and the penalty on the appellants was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255012