https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448757 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal against penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant Director was charged with supplying raw materials clandestinely to another company for duty evasion. The tribunal found that revenue failed to establish clandestine removal as no specific quantity, value, or payment details were provided as evidence. The adjudicating authority violated natural justice principles by not cross-examining witnesses despite appellant's objections. Since no duty evasion was proven, the penalty for abetment was held unsustainable. en-us Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:50:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448757 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal against penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant Director was charged with supplying raw materials clandestinely to another company for duty evasion. The tribunal found that revenue failed to establish clandestine removal as no specific quantity, value, or payment details were provided as evidence. The adjudicating authority violated natural justice principles by not cross-examining witnesses despite appellant's objections. Since no duty evasion was proven, the penalty for abetment was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448757