https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335503 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, but reduced it from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant's argument of being a co-noticee was rejected, emphasizing the lack of notice to the other party. The Tribunal recognized the appellant's role as a dealer and the payment made by the other party, leading to the penalty reduction. This case underscores the importance of liability in penalty matters and demonstrates the Tribunal's consideration of legal provisions and case circumstances for a fair decision. en-us Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335503 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, but reduced it from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant's argument of being a co-noticee was rejected, emphasizing the lack of notice to the other party. The Tribunal recognized the appellant's role as a dealer and the payment made by the other party, leading to the penalty reduction. This case underscores the importance of liability in penalty matters and demonstrates the Tribunal's consideration of legal provisions and case circumstances for a fair decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335503