Rule 209A penalty requires knowing involvement with liable goods; redemption fine and penalties were reduced on the facts.

Redemption fine and excise penalties were reduced where the Tribunal found the original quantum excessive in light of the surrounding circumstances and the absence of wilful evasion. The penalty on the second appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside because mere relationship with a director and ownership of the vehicle did not establish the required knowing involvement with goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal treated specific conditions under Rule 209A as essential and held that they were not satisfied on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the first appellant warranted reduction; (ii) whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained against the second appellant.

Issue (i): reduction of redemption fine and penalties imposed on the first appellant.

Analysis: The first appellant sought reduction of the fine and penalties on the footing that there was no willful or intentional evasion and that the goods were of day-earlier production. On the record, the Tribunal accepted that the quantum imposed required interference and considered reduction appropriate.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and the penalties imposed on the first appellant were reduced to 50%.

Issue (ii): sustainability of penalty on the second appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the second appellant had no role in the confiscated goods or their disposal. Mere relationship with a director and ownership of the vehicle were held insufficient, as the conditions for penalty under Rule 209A were not satisfied and he had not handled goods known to be liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the second appellant was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was modified by reducing the monetary consequences on the first appellant and completely deleting the penalty on the second appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Rule 209A requires satisfaction of its specific conditions, including knowing involvement with goods liable to confiscation, and monetary penalties may be reduced where the circumstances do not justify the original quantum.

---