https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347786 The case involved the confirmation of demand and penalties in the initial adjudication against M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd. The Tribunal remanded the case for denovo adjudication, resulting in an increased demand and higher penalties. The imposition of penalties under Rule 26 was upheld due to the involvement of all parties in the clandestine removal of goods. The Member(Judicial) reduced the penalties on appeal, finding the initial penalties excessive and reducing the demand from Rs. 42 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs for Shri Pankaj Jaju and lowering penalties for other parties. The appeals were partly allowed based on the reduced penalties. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:36:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347786 The case involved the confirmation of demand and penalties in the initial adjudication against M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd. The Tribunal remanded the case for denovo adjudication, resulting in an increased demand and higher penalties. The imposition of penalties under Rule 26 was upheld due to the involvement of all parties in the clandestine removal of goods. The Member(Judicial) reduced the penalties on appeal, finding the initial penalties excessive and reducing the demand from Rs. 42 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs for Shri Pankaj Jaju and lowering penalties for other parties. The appeals were partly allowed based on the reduced penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347786