Reasoned penalty findings are essential: penalty under Rule 209A was set aside where the appellant's role was not examined.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable because the adjudication order did not record any discussion or finding on the appellant's specific role in the alleged evasion. A penalty order must contain reasons and clearly consider the person's involvement before liability is fastened. In the absence of such reasoning, the order was legally defective and the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable when the adjudication order did not discuss the appellant's role.

Analysis: The impugned order imposed penalty on the appellant without recording any discussion or finding on the appellant's specific role in relation to the alleged evasion. A penalty order must be supported by reasons and by a clear consideration of the person's involvement before liability can be fastened. In the absence of any such discussion, the adjudication order was held to be legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---