https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258765 Penalty under Rule 26(1) requires evidence that the person dealt with excisable goods knowing them to be liable to confiscation. Where the Department had earlier accepted the job-work activity and related service tax pattern, mere later reclassification of the activity as manufacture did not establish the requisite knowledge. On the available record, the appellant showed no material linking it to conscious dealing in goods liable to confiscation, and a strong prima facie case for interim relief was made out. Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of the penalty was stayed. en-us Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258765 Penalty under Rule 26(1) requires evidence that the person dealt with excisable goods knowing them to be liable to confiscation. Where the Department had earlier accepted the job-work activity and related service tax pattern, mere later reclassification of the activity as manufacture did not establish the requisite knowledge. On the available record, the appellant showed no material linking it to conscious dealing in goods liable to confiscation, and a strong prima facie case for interim relief was made out. Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of the penalty was stayed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258765