https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364689 Rule 26 penalty may be imposed on a person dealing with excisable goods if he knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. The absence of a separate proposal for confiscation in the notice, or the absence of an actual confiscation order, does not by itself defeat penalty proceedings where clandestine removal and active involvement are established. On that reasoning, the penalty was upheld and the objection based on non-initiation of confiscation proceedings failed. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Aug 2018 08:32:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364689 Rule 26 penalty may be imposed on a person dealing with excisable goods if he knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. The absence of a separate proposal for confiscation in the notice, or the absence of an actual confiscation order, does not by itself defeat penalty proceedings where clandestine removal and active involvement are established. On that reasoning, the penalty was upheld and the objection based on non-initiation of confiscation proceedings failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364689