Penalty under Rule 209A requires proof of active involvement; presumptions and general allegations were insufficient here.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires concrete evidence of conscious involvement in the offence; mere assumptions, family relationship with the proprietor, or general allegations of aiding and abetting are insufficient. The record did not show any specific role or active participation by the first appellant, and there was likewise no direct evidence connecting the second appellant to the alleged clandestine removal. On that basis, the penalty was held unsustainable against both appellants and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained against the appellants in the absence of conclusive evidence of their involvement in the alleged clandestine removal.

Analysis: The penalty was founded on assumptions that one appellant, being the son of the proprietor, must have assisted in the business during the proprietor's sickness, and that the other appellant had aided and abetted the offence. The impugned order did not discuss any concrete role attributable to the first appellant, nor did it record material evidence showing his active involvement. As to the second appellant, the record similarly lacked evidence of direct participation sufficient to invoke penal liability under Rule 209A. Mere presumptions or general observations were held insufficient to justify penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 209A was not sustainable against either appellant, and both appeals were allowed with the penalties set aside.

---