https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345647 The judgment allowed the appeal against the personal penalty imposed on the proprietor under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, emphasizing that no additional penalty should be imposed on the proprietor when the firm is penalized. The court scrutinized the evidence, highlighting discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence in the Revenue's case. While upholding duty demand and penalties for certain clearances, the court set aside the confiscation of goods and the penalty on the proprietor due to insufficient substantiating evidence and legal principles. en-us Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345647 The judgment allowed the appeal against the personal penalty imposed on the proprietor under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, emphasizing that no additional penalty should be imposed on the proprietor when the firm is penalized. The court scrutinized the evidence, highlighting discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence in the Revenue's case. While upholding duty demand and penalties for certain clearances, the court set aside the confiscation of goods and the penalty on the proprietor due to insufficient substantiating evidence and legal principles. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345647