Transporter penalty requires proof of conscious involvement; apparently regular consignor documents were insufficient to sustain confiscation.

Confiscation of a truck and penalty on a transporter under Rule 209A were found unsustainable where the record showed only carriage of goods on the basis of invoices and delivery challans supplied by the consignor. In the absence of evidence linking the transporter to the fictitious consigner or to any conscious involvement in the wrongful exemption claim, the transporter was not expected to verify the excise correctness of apparently regular documents furnished with the consignment. The operative principle is that transporter penalty requires proof of knowledge or participation in the contravention, which was not established on these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the truck and penalty under Rule 209A were sustainable against the transporter in the absence of evidence of his involvement in the improper claim made by the consignor.

Analysis: The transporter had carried the goods on the basis of invoices and delivery challans handed over with the consignment. The record contained no evidence linking the appellant to the fictitious consigner or to any wrongful claim of exemption by the supplier. A transporter and the driver were not expected to verify the excise correctness of documents supplied by the consignor when the consignment was accompanied by apparently regular papers.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable, and the appellant was held not guilty of any contravention.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty on a transporter under Rule 209A cannot be sustained without evidence of conscious involvement or knowledge of the contravention, particularly where transport is under apparently regular documents supplied by the consignor.

---