https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367614 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be sustained against a director merely because of his office where the record shows no evidence of his involvement in the alleged illegal activity. The absence of any proposal in the show cause notice for confiscation, and the absence of a confiscation order, further made Rule 26 invocation unjustified. On these facts, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside. en-us Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:19:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367614 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be sustained against a director merely because of his office where the record shows no evidence of his involvement in the alleged illegal activity. The absence of any proposal in the show cause notice for confiscation, and the absence of a confiscation order, further made Rule 26 invocation unjustified. On these facts, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367614