Rule 209A penalty needs factual nexus with disputed excisable goods; pure findings of fact raised no question of law.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires a factual nexus between the person proceeded against and the excisable goods in dispute. Here, the Tribunal found that the respondent had no concern with the goods covered by the show cause notice, and the Commissioner's order similarly noted that the firms said to be managed by the respondent had no role in the proceedings. On that factual basis, the High Court held that the matter raised no question of law for admission and declined interference. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable on a question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained when the factual findings showed that the respondent had no concern with the excisable goods in dispute, and whether any question of law arose for admission of the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found that the respondent was not concerned with the excisable goods that were the subject matter of the proceedings. It was further noticed that penalty under Rule 209A could be imposed only in relation to excisable goods involved in the proceedings initiated by show cause notice. The Commissioner's order also recorded that none of the firms alleged to be managed by the respondent had any role in the show cause notice. On this factual foundation, the Court held that the controversy turned on findings of fact and did not raise any question of law warranting interference.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable on a question of law and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be sustained absent a factual nexus between the person proceeded against and the excisable goods in dispute, and no appeal lies where the controversy is concluded by pure findings of fact without any question of law.

---