Penalty under Rule 26 for Clandestine Removal justified if sufficient evidences exist

Pintu Tyagi Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Allahabad) Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 26 was justified on the proof that there were sufficient evidences adduced to allege clandestine removal and appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit. Held: Intelligence was received that appellant (Paresh Tyagi) and his brother Pintu Tyagi (Expired on 17.06.2013) were operating a factory located at Ghaziabad and were engaged in casting/ forging (co...