Personal penalty under Central Excise Rules requires proof of knowledge that goods were liable to confiscation

Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depends on proof that the person concerned knew the goods were liable to confiscation. The Tribunal examined the respondent's statement and surrounding record, found that such knowledge had not been established, and held that the departmental case failed on that factual basis. The High Court declined to interfere, noting that a different view on the same evidence would not justify intervention and that no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal penalty imposed on the respondent under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable in the absence of proof that he had knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Analysis: The respondent's statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the surrounding record were examined in the context of the penalty imposed for dealings connected with goods liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal had found that, for invoking Rule 209A, the department was required to establish that the officer knew the goods were liable to confiscation. On the record before it, the Tribunal concluded that such knowledge had not been brought home, and that the officers were not shown to have awareness of the applicable excise requirements. The High Court found no basis to disturb that factual conclusion and held that a different view on the same evidence would not justify interference.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 209A was not sustainable, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be sustained only when the person concerned is shown to have knowledge that the goods are liable to confiscation; absent such proof, interference is unwarranted.

---