https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255425 Penalties under the Central Excise Rules were sustained where the factual findings showed a common scheme to procure excisable goods duty-free under CT-3 and warehousing documents and divert them to the local market with the appellants' active participation and knowledge. The challenge that one appellant had no separate duty liability, and that the show cause notice did not specifically refer to the penalty provisions, was rejected because the notice, replies, and concurrent findings covered rule contravention, removal without duty payment, and facilitation of evasion. The court treated the cited Supreme Court authority as distinguishable on its facts and held that no substantial question of law arose. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255425 Penalties under the Central Excise Rules were sustained where the factual findings showed a common scheme to procure excisable goods duty-free under CT-3 and warehousing documents and divert them to the local market with the appellants' active participation and knowledge. The challenge that one appellant had no separate duty liability, and that the show cause notice did not specifically refer to the penalty provisions, was rejected because the notice, replies, and concurrent findings covered rule contravention, removal without duty payment, and facilitation of evasion. The court treated the cited Supreme Court authority as distinguishable on its facts and held that no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255425