https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269288 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof of actual participation in acquiring, transporting, removing, keeping, concealing, selling, purchasing, or otherwise dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Mere suspicion, association with the manufacturer, or receipt of royalty was held insufficient. A retracted statement, unsupported by independent corroboration, could not establish the appellants' involvement or control over the alleged clandestine removals. On that material, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside. en-us Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269288 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof of actual participation in acquiring, transporting, removing, keeping, concealing, selling, purchasing, or otherwise dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Mere suspicion, association with the manufacturer, or receipt of royalty was held insufficient. A retracted statement, unsupported by independent corroboration, could not establish the appellants' involvement or control over the alleged clandestine removals. On that material, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269288