https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433525 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be sustained against a corporate entity where the provision is applied on the basis of personal knowledge linked to liability for confiscation. The Tribunal accepted that the term "any person" may in a general sense include a company, but held that a company acts only through natural persons and that the relevant guilty knowledge must exist with the individuals behind the corporate veil. Applying the Larger Bench reasoning treated as equally applicable to Rule 26, the penalty against the appellant company was set aside. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Feb 2023 08:56:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433525 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be sustained against a corporate entity where the provision is applied on the basis of personal knowledge linked to liability for confiscation. The Tribunal accepted that the term "any person" may in a general sense include a company, but held that a company acts only through natural persons and that the relevant guilty knowledge must exist with the individuals behind the corporate veil. Applying the Larger Bench reasoning treated as equally applicable to Rule 26, the penalty against the appellant company was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433525