https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794481 Penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were held unsustainable where they rested only on statements of the appellants and witnesses without independent corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal. The Tribunal also found that the statements were not supported in the manner required by Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that the adjudicating authority had failed to identify the exact clause or sub-rule invoked. Applying strict construction of penalty provisions, the penalties were set aside. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 08:39:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794481 Penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were held unsustainable where they rested only on statements of the appellants and witnesses without independent corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal. The Tribunal also found that the statements were not supported in the manner required by Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that the adjudicating authority had failed to identify the exact clause or sub-rule invoked. Applying strict construction of penalty provisions, the penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794481