https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352812 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained where the alleged clandestine sale of pig iron was based only on presumption, without identifying any purchaser or proving any actual sale or consignment route. A retracted statement was held insufficient by itself for penalty in the absence of independent corroboration in material particulars. The settled principle applied was that allegations of clandestine removal or related contravention must rest on positive, tangible evidence, and the penalty was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352812 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained where the alleged clandestine sale of pig iron was based only on presumption, without identifying any purchaser or proving any actual sale or consignment route. A retracted statement was held insufficient by itself for penalty in the absence of independent corroboration in material particulars. The settled principle applied was that allegations of clandestine removal or related contravention must rest on positive, tangible evidence, and the penalty was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352812