https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385347 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained where the order failed to examine the appellant's actual involvement or record any reasoned basis for liability. The High Court noted that the penalty confirmation against the company and its director did not discuss the requirements of Rule 26 or the facts linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after notice and opportunity of hearing, so the penalty issue could be reconsidered on a proper factual and legal basis. en-us Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:13:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385347 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained where the order failed to examine the appellant's actual involvement or record any reasoned basis for liability. The High Court noted that the penalty confirmation against the company and its director did not discuss the requirements of Rule 26 or the facts linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after notice and opportunity of hearing, so the penalty issue could be reconsidered on a proper factual and legal basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385347