https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331193 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the alleged scheme involved dummy units, book entries and a financial arrangement, but the appellants' actual involvement in excise duty evasion was not independently established. The Tribunal noted that mere association with transactions reflected in accounts was insufficient without coherent evidence linking each co-noticee to duty evasion. On that basis, the penal consequences were set aside for want of independent proof of liability. en-us Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331193 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the alleged scheme involved dummy units, book entries and a financial arrangement, but the appellants' actual involvement in excise duty evasion was not independently established. The Tribunal noted that mere association with transactions reflected in accounts was insufficient without coherent evidence linking each co-noticee to duty evasion. On that basis, the penal consequences were set aside for want of independent proof of liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331193