https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1180 Penalty on a director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable only where the person deals with excisable goods liable to confiscation, with knowledge or reason to believe that liability exists. Here, the director merely manipulated records and did not physically deal with any excisable goods, and no goods were held liable to confiscation. That statutory precondition was therefore absent, making Rule 26 inapplicable. The absence of penalty on the company under the related Cenvat Credit provisions also supported the conclusion that the director's penalty was unwarranted. The penalty was set aside. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1180 Penalty on a director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable only where the person deals with excisable goods liable to confiscation, with knowledge or reason to believe that liability exists. Here, the director merely manipulated records and did not physically deal with any excisable goods, and no goods were held liable to confiscation. That statutory precondition was therefore absent, making Rule 26 inapplicable. The absence of penalty on the company under the related Cenvat Credit provisions also supported the conclusion that the director's penalty was unwarranted. The penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1180