https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412932 The Bombay High Court considered whether the order setting aside a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was vitiated by reliance on no evidence, partly relevant and partly irrelevant evidence, or was otherwise perverse and arbitrary. The Court answered the framed question in the affirmative, following the conclusions reached in the connected appeal, and the challenge to the order setting aside the penalty failed. The order under challenge was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Sep 2021 09:22:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412932 The Bombay High Court considered whether the order setting aside a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was vitiated by reliance on no evidence, partly relevant and partly irrelevant evidence, or was otherwise perverse and arbitrary. The Court answered the framed question in the affirmative, following the conclusions reached in the connected appeal, and the challenge to the order setting aside the penalty failed. The order under challenge was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412932