https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759057 Gujarat HC dismissed appeals challenging penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for clandestine removal. Appellants were company officials including Managing Director, President, and Vice-President. Court held Rule 26 penalty can be imposed on persons concerned with removal of goods liable to confiscation, even without confiscation order. Authority properly invoked Rule 26 based on recorded statement admitting involvement. Appellants' contention about failure to specify applicable sub-rule was baseless. Non-cooperation in investigation by two appellants did not prevent penalty imposition given their knowledge of company affairs. CESTAT order upheld. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759057 Gujarat HC dismissed appeals challenging penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for clandestine removal. Appellants were company officials including Managing Director, President, and Vice-President. Court held Rule 26 penalty can be imposed on persons concerned with removal of goods liable to confiscation, even without confiscation order. Authority properly invoked Rule 26 based on recorded statement admitting involvement. Appellants' contention about failure to specify applicable sub-rule was baseless. Non-cooperation in investigation by two appellants did not prevent penalty imposition given their knowledge of company affairs. CESTAT order upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759057