Rule 209A extends to companies and indirect dealings in excisable goods that facilitate clandestine clearance.

Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed to apply to companies as juristic persons, on the basis that "any person" includes corporate entities and that penal consequences may attach even where imprisonment cannot. The provision was also given wide reach to cover indirect dealing with excisable goods: supplying scrap without documents to facilitate another entity's manufacture and clandestine clearance amounted to conduct falling within "in any other manner deals with" goods liable to confiscation. On that reasoning, the penalty was sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be imposed on a company as a juristic person. (ii) Whether the appellant's conduct in supplying scrap without documents amounted to dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation so as to attract penalty under Rule 209A.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be imposed on a company as a juristic person.

Analysis: Rule 209A was held to cover not only natural persons but also companies. The expression "any person" was read broadly in the context of corporate criminal liability. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that a juristic person can be subjected to penal consequences even if imprisonment cannot be imposed on it, and that the rule was intended to reach acts done behind the corporate veil.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 209A could be imposed on the company.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's conduct in supplying scrap without documents amounted to dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation so as to attract penalty under Rule 209A.

Analysis: The expression "in any other manner deals with" was treated as having wide amplitude. Supplying scrap without documents to facilitate manufacture and clandestine clearance by another entity was held to fall within the mischief of the rule, because direct physical handling of the goods was not necessary. The conduct was sufficient to show concern with goods known or reasonably believed to be liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The appellant's conduct attracted penalty under Rule 209A.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty failed, and the impugned order confirming the penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 209A extends to companies and to persons whose indirect participation in the supply or movement of excisable goods facilitates clandestine clearance of goods known or reasonably believed to be liable to confiscation.

---