Penalty under Rule 209A requires proven conscious participation in confiscation-linked conduct, not mere company association.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires a specific finding, supported by evidence, that the concerned knowingly participated in conduct rendering goods liable to confiscation. Mere status as finance controller or routine involvement in purchase and accounts is insufficient without proof of conscious involvement in the offence. On that basis, the penalty was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained in the absence of a specific finding regarding the appellant's role and evidence of involvement in the alleged offence.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on the basis that the appellant had worked as finance controller and had dealt with purchase and accounts of the company. However, there was no specific finding by the adjudicating authority establishing that his conduct satisfied the ingredients necessary for penalty under Rule 209A. Mere association with the company or performance of routine commercial work was insufficient without evidence showing conscious participation in an act rendering goods liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 209A could not be sustained against the appellant and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the penalty imposed on the appellant was annulled with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be imposed unless the authority records a specific finding, supported by evidence, that the person concerned knowingly participated in conduct attracting confiscation-related liability.

---