https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264012 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that a person was concerned with excisable goods in a manner covered by the rule and had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Mere brokerage or commission-agent activity, without evidence of acquiring, dealing with, transporting, removing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing the goods, does not satisfy the statutory ingredients. On the facts described, the notices rested on brokerage activity and statements alone, which were insufficient to attract the penal provision, and the penalty was stated to be not exigible. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264012 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that a person was concerned with excisable goods in a manner covered by the rule and had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Mere brokerage or commission-agent activity, without evidence of acquiring, dealing with, transporting, removing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing the goods, does not satisfy the statutory ingredients. On the facts described, the notices rested on brokerage activity and statements alone, which were insufficient to attract the penal provision, and the penalty was stated to be not exigible. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264012