https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789726 Penalty under rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that the person dealt with excisable goods and knew or had reason to believe they were liable to confiscation; the order recorded no finding on that mental element, so the penalty failed. Reliance on the appellant's statement recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also impermissible because the statutory procedure under section 9D was not followed, leaving the factual basis for the penalty without admissible support. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789726 Penalty under rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that the person dealt with excisable goods and knew or had reason to believe they were liable to confiscation; the order recorded no finding on that mental element, so the penalty failed. Reliance on the appellant's statement recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also impermissible because the statutory procedure under section 9D was not followed, leaving the factual basis for the penalty without admissible support. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789726