https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801225 Individual director penalty under Rule 26(2) is unsustainable where the company was not served with a penalty show-cause notice, the director was not an authorised signatory, and personal involvement is unproved. Liability requires proof that the individual issued, or abetted issuing, invoices without delivery of goods; a corporate transaction alone does not establish vicarious penal liability. Purchasers' reversal of credit is not an admission by the director or company. Investigation statements, including those of truck owners, cannot support liability unless admitted through the mandatory procedure under Section 9D. Lack of supplier infrastructure alone does not prove the director's connivance or abetment. en-us Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Oct 2026 05:20:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801225 Individual director penalty under Rule 26(2) is unsustainable where the company was not served with a penalty show-cause notice, the director was not an authorised signatory, and personal involvement is unproved. Liability requires proof that the individual issued, or abetted issuing, invoices without delivery of goods; a corporate transaction alone does not establish vicarious penal liability. Purchasers' reversal of credit is not an admission by the director or company. Investigation statements, including those of truck owners, cannot support liability unless admitted through the mandatory procedure under Section 9D. Lack of supplier infrastructure alone does not prove the director's connivance or abetment. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801225