https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427008 Penalty under excise law was sustained against a company's sole authorised signatory where the record showed his admission of manipulation of product cost and removal of goods from the job worker's premises. His statement was relied on in relation to the company's duty evasion and clandestine removal, and the appellate authority had already taken a lenient view by substantially reducing the penalty. In the absence of any material infirmity in those findings, further interference was refused and the reduced penalties remained in force. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:01:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427008 Penalty under excise law was sustained against a company's sole authorised signatory where the record showed his admission of manipulation of product cost and removal of goods from the job worker's premises. His statement was relied on in relation to the company's duty evasion and clandestine removal, and the appellate authority had already taken a lenient view by substantially reducing the penalty. In the absence of any material infirmity in those findings, further interference was refused and the reduced penalties remained in force. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427008