https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175487 The court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner in a case involving an alleged violation of Section 9 (A) (A) of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner, not a director or employee of the company accused of evading excise duty, was found not directly involved in the company's operations based on documentary evidence. The court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the company's conduct, leading to the grant of bail with conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation. The decision was based on the petitioner's non-director status and the absence of proof of involvement in the evasion of duty. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175487 The court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner in a case involving an alleged violation of Section 9 (A) (A) of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner, not a director or employee of the company accused of evading excise duty, was found not directly involved in the company's operations based on documentary evidence. The court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the company's conduct, leading to the grant of bail with conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation. The decision was based on the petitioner's non-director status and the absence of proof of involvement in the evasion of duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175487