https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340709 Personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was considered leviable where company officers were shown to have knowledge of, and active association with, a duty evasion scheme involving splitting work into bare pipes and coating activity and making misleading statements about removal and storage of goods. The factual record was treated as sufficient to attribute individual responsibility for conduct contributing to the evasion, and the existence of penalty on the company was not treated as excluding personal liability. On that basis, penalties on the Managing Director and the Vice President (Commercial) were upheld. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:04:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340709 Personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was considered leviable where company officers were shown to have knowledge of, and active association with, a duty evasion scheme involving splitting work into bare pipes and coating activity and making misleading statements about removal and storage of goods. The factual record was treated as sufficient to attribute individual responsibility for conduct contributing to the evasion, and the existence of penalty on the company was not treated as excluding personal liability. On that basis, penalties on the Managing Director and the Vice President (Commercial) were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340709