https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195936 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on a regular transporter for goods delivered at a different location. The decision emphasized the need for clear evidence linking the transporter to any violation of excise rules, stating that mere possession of documents related to the transportation of goods was insufficient to establish liability. As the appellant's role did not demonstrate knowledge or involvement in any wrongdoing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, underscoring the requirement for concrete proof of culpability to impose penalties on transporters in such circumstances. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:33:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195936 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on a regular transporter for goods delivered at a different location. The decision emphasized the need for clear evidence linking the transporter to any violation of excise rules, stating that mere possession of documents related to the transportation of goods was insufficient to establish liability. As the appellant's role did not demonstrate knowledge or involvement in any wrongdoing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, underscoring the requirement for concrete proof of culpability to impose penalties on transporters in such circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195936