https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781627 CESTAT AHMEDABAD (AT) set aside the personal penalty imposed under Rule 26 on an employee of a merchant exporter firm, holding that adjudicating authority failed to demonstrate how the employee met Rule 26(2) criteria. The court relied on prior CESTAT precedents requiring specific evidence of involvement, corroboration beyond testimonial claims, and proof of pecuniary benefit or salary anomalies to infer malicious intent. Noting absence of goods confiscation and inadequate proof of active facilitation of ineligible rebates, the penalty was quashed and the appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781627 CESTAT AHMEDABAD (AT) set aside the personal penalty imposed under Rule 26 on an employee of a merchant exporter firm, holding that adjudicating authority failed to demonstrate how the employee met Rule 26(2) criteria. The court relied on prior CESTAT precedents requiring specific evidence of involvement, corroboration beyond testimonial claims, and proof of pecuniary benefit or salary anomalies to infer malicious intent. Noting absence of goods confiscation and inadequate proof of active facilitation of ineligible rebates, the penalty was quashed and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781627