https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408798 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on M/s. Kailash Traders for their alleged involvement in clandestine removal of excisable goods due to insufficient evidence proving the appellant's knowledge or intent, as required by Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence to establish guilt, highlighting the lack of such evidence in the case. Previous judgments were found to rely on presumptive decisions rather than concrete proof against the appellant, leading to the appeal being allowed and the penalty being overturned. en-us Fri, 04 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:14:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408798 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on M/s. Kailash Traders for their alleged involvement in clandestine removal of excisable goods due to insufficient evidence proving the appellant's knowledge or intent, as required by Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence to establish guilt, highlighting the lack of such evidence in the case. Previous judgments were found to rely on presumptive decisions rather than concrete proof against the appellant, leading to the appeal being allowed and the penalty being overturned. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408798