Knowledge requirement for excise penalty and conveyance confiscation defeats action without proof of awareness or connivance.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that the person dealt with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe they were liable to confiscation; absent evidence of such knowledge, the penalty is not sustainable. Confiscation of the conveyance depends on use of the vehicle in contravention of excise law and the relevant knowledge or connivance requirement; where the record does not show that the driver knew the goods were liable to excise consequences, confiscation cannot be sustained. The text states that both the penalty and confiscation orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable against the transporter in the absence of evidence that he knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation; and (ii) whether the vehicle used for transport of the goods was liable to confiscation.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable against the transporter in the absence of evidence that he knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Rule 209A authorises penalty only where a person acquires, transports, removes, keeps, conceals, sells, purchases, or otherwise deals with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation. No material showed that the appellant himself was driving the vehicle or that he had knowledge that the goods loaded in the truck were liable to confiscation. In the absence of such evidence, the statutory requirement for penalty was not satisfied.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 209A was not imposable on the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the vehicle used for transport of the goods was liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Confiscation of the conveyance could follow only if it was used in contravention of the excise law, subject to the owner's ability to prove absence of knowledge or connivance. The goods were loaded on the assertion that they were exempt, no invoice was given to the driver, and the department did not controvert the appellant's stand. On these facts, it could not be presumed that the driver knew the excise liability of the goods, and the vehicle was not shown to be liable for confiscation.

Conclusion: The vehicle was not liable to confiscation.

Final Conclusion: The penalty and confiscation orders were set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Rule 209A and confiscation of a conveyance require proof of the requisite knowledge or reason to believe, or proof of use of the vehicle in contravention of the excise law; absent such evidence, neither consequence can be sustained.

---