Penalty on identical facts cannot be revived by changing the provision when knowledge of non-duty-paid goods was unproven.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where an earlier order on identical facts had already found no evidence that the appellants knew the yarn was non-duty-paid and had set aside penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that the same factual matrix could not support a fresh penalty merely by invoking a different provision, because there was no change in the underlying facts and the prior finding had already negated penal liability. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained against the appellants on the same facts on which an earlier finding had already held that there was no evidence of their knowledge regarding the non-duty-paid character of the goods and had set aside penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: An earlier order on identical facts had concluded that the appellants were merely recipients of yarn cleared by a 100% EOU, that there was no evidence showing awareness of its non-duty-paid character, and that the penal provision invoked on those facts was not attracted. The present penalty was founded on the same factual basis. The Tribunal held that, once the prior decision had already negated penal liability on the very same facts, the adjudicating authority could not impose another penalty by recasting the action under a different provision. There was no change in the factual matrix and the subsequent order was therefore contrary to settled jurisprudence.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the appellants was not sustainable and was set aside.

---