https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350769 Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that the person dealt with excisable goods knowing them to be liable to confiscation or was consciously involved in evasion. On the record, no specific role was shown for the director in procurement, clearance, or clandestine removal, and the case rested mainly on his position as overall in-charge and alleged inconsistencies in statements. The alleged commission receipts were not established as sale proceeds of clandestinely removed goods. In the absence of evidence of knowledge, connivance, or direct involvement, mere designation in the company could not justify personal penalty, so the penalty was set aside. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:31:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350769 Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that the person dealt with excisable goods knowing them to be liable to confiscation or was consciously involved in evasion. On the record, no specific role was shown for the director in procurement, clearance, or clandestine removal, and the case rested mainly on his position as overall in-charge and alleged inconsistencies in statements. The alleged commission receipts were not established as sale proceeds of clandestinely removed goods. In the absence of evidence of knowledge, connivance, or direct involvement, mere designation in the company could not justify personal penalty, so the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350769