https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768329 Penalty under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires independent corroborative evidence showing a person's active involvement in the prohibited handling of excisable goods. On the facts stated, the employee's role as General Manager (Accounts) and the allegation of diversion of goods were not enough, because the record did not establish direct evidence of liability. The penalty also could not survive once the main demand against the principal assessee had already been set aside in the connected matter. The Tribunal therefore held the penalty unsustainable and set it aside. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2025 08:23:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768329 Penalty under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires independent corroborative evidence showing a person's active involvement in the prohibited handling of excisable goods. On the facts stated, the employee's role as General Manager (Accounts) and the allegation of diversion of goods were not enough, because the record did not establish direct evidence of liability. The penalty also could not survive once the main demand against the principal assessee had already been set aside in the connected matter. The Tribunal therefore held the penalty unsustainable and set it aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768329