https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798383 Penalty for abetting clandestine removal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that the goods were liable to confiscation. Although an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied on had been provided and was not used, recovery of a diary and notepad did not establish the truth of their contents. In the absence of affirmative corroboration of unaccounted manufacture, raw-material procurement, transport, clearance, buyers, or unaccounted consideration, clandestine removal was not established. As the allegedly purchased goods were not proved liable to confiscation, no Rule 26 penalty was imposable. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2026 08:48:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798383 Penalty for abetting clandestine removal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that the goods were liable to confiscation. Although an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied on had been provided and was not used, recovery of a diary and notepad did not establish the truth of their contents. In the absence of affirmative corroboration of unaccounted manufacture, raw-material procurement, transport, clearance, buyers, or unaccounted consideration, clandestine removal was not established. As the allegedly purchased goods were not proved liable to confiscation, no Rule 26 penalty was imposable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798383