https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767113 CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal against penalty imposed under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for clandestine removal. The transporter-appellant argued lack of awareness about goods being liable for confiscation and unpaid excise duty. The Tribunal held that while non-carrying of invoices alone doesn't presume confiscation liability, transporters cannot escape responsibility to obtain proper invoices. Evidence showed appellant's knowledge of clandestine activities through cash payments, lack of written records, and failure to maintain lorry receipts. The Tribunal concluded appellant was aware of the clandestine removal and upheld the penalty. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:33:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767113 CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal against penalty imposed under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for clandestine removal. The transporter-appellant argued lack of awareness about goods being liable for confiscation and unpaid excise duty. The Tribunal held that while non-carrying of invoices alone doesn't presume confiscation liability, transporters cannot escape responsibility to obtain proper invoices. Evidence showed appellant's knowledge of clandestine activities through cash payments, lack of written records, and failure to maintain lorry receipts. The Tribunal concluded appellant was aware of the clandestine removal and upheld the penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767113