Rule 209A penalty requires proof of knowledge and nexus with offending goods; absent mens rea, transporter liability fails.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires evidence linking the person to the offending goods and proof of the requisite knowledge or mens rea. On the available record, the transporter had booked the goods in the ordinary course of business, and there was no evidence that he knew they were non-duty paid or liable to confiscation. The absence of such proof meant penal liability could not be fastened, and the penalty was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained against the transporter in the absence of evidence showing knowledge that the goods were non-duty paid and liable to confiscation.

Analysis: The penalty provision required the Revenue to establish a nexus between the transporter and the offending goods, together with the requisite mental element. The record did not show that the transporter had knowledge that the goods were non-duty paid, and the goods were booked in the ordinary course of business without documents such as gate passes or way bills. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also extended benefit of doubt on the available material. In these circumstances, the finding that there was no adequate evidence to fasten penal liability was supported by the record and by the principle that Rule 209A could not be invoked without evidence connecting the person with the offence and the presence of mens rea.

Conclusion: The penalty on the transporter was not sustainable and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires evidence linking the person to the offending act or goods and proof of the requisite knowledge or mens rea.

---