Rule 209A penalty requires physical dealing with excisable goods; mere accounting work is insufficient and natural justice must be observed.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires conscious physical dealing with excisable goods and knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation; mere clerical or accounting work does not satisfy the statutory ingredients. On that reasoning, an accountant who had no role in the physical movement or handling of the goods would fall outside the scope of the provision and penalty would not be sustainable. The text also notes that an adjudication order passed without effective notice of personal hearing or proper opportunity to appear is procedurally defective and contrary to natural justice, rendering the order vulnerable on that ground as well.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be imposed on an accountant who had not physically dealt with excisable goods. (ii) Whether the penalty order was vitiated for breach of natural justice due to absence of personal hearing.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be imposed on an accountant who had not physically dealt with excisable goods.

Analysis: Rule 209A applies only where a person acquires possession of, or is otherwise physically concerned with, excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The provision requires conscious physical dealing with the goods and not merely clerical or accounting work. Since the appellant was only maintaining accounts and had no role in the physical movement or handling of the goods, the essential ingredients for penalty were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 209A was not sustainable against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty order was vitiated for breach of natural justice due to absence of personal hearing.

Analysis: The adjudication order did not disclose effective service of notice of personal hearing or any proper attempt to secure the appellant's presence. The matter was decided without affording a hearing, which amounted to a procedural lapse contrary to natural justice.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was vitiated for violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order was set aside and the appeal was allowed because the appellant did not fall within the scope of Rule 209A and the adjudication suffered from procedural unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be imposed only on a person who has physically dealt with excisable goods with the requisite knowledge or belief that they are liable to confiscation; mere accounting involvement is insufficient.

---