https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366893 Penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were considered sustainable where the record showed active participation in clandestine removal and evasion. The Managing Director was treated as the direct beneficiary of the illicit clearances, while employees were found to have maintained parallel records, issued invoices, directed removals and otherwise assisted the evasion. The Tribunal also held that the corporate appellants' conduct brought them within the penal provision, and distinguished a Larger Bench ruling on a different rule. However, the original penalties were found excessive in light of the respective roles played, so the quantum was reduced for all appellants. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:17:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366893 Penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were considered sustainable where the record showed active participation in clandestine removal and evasion. The Managing Director was treated as the direct beneficiary of the illicit clearances, while employees were found to have maintained parallel records, issued invoices, directed removals and otherwise assisted the evasion. The Tribunal also held that the corporate appellants' conduct brought them within the penal provision, and distinguished a Larger Bench ruling on a different rule. However, the original penalties were found excessive in light of the respective roles played, so the quantum was reduced for all appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366893