Transporter penalty requires proof of knowing participation in clandestine removal; invoices alone are insufficient.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not automatic against a transporter merely for carrying goods from factory premises. Liability depends on evidence that the transporter knew the excisable character of the goods and knowingly aided or abetted clandestine removal or duty evasion. Where the goods were moved on the basis of invoices and there is no material showing connivance, intentional facilitation, or awareness of illicit removal, the transporter cannot be treated as guilty of the alleged violation. On those facts, the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained against transporters for carrying goods on the basis of invoices, in the absence of evidence showing knowledge of clandestine removal or intentional participation in the manufacturer's evasion.

Analysis: Penalty on a transporter is not automatic merely because goods were carried from the factory premises. The essential requirement is evidence that the transporter was aware of the excisable character of the goods and had knowingly aided or abetted the manufacturer's clandestine activity. Where the records indicate that invoices covering the goods were available to the transporter and there is no material to show connivance or intentional facilitation of removal without duty, the transporter cannot be treated as guilty of the alleged violation.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 209A was unsustainable against the transporters and was set aside.

---