Personal penalty under Rule 209A needs proven knowledge of confiscability; factual finding defeated any substantial question of law.

Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be sustained only when the record establishes the officer's knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. On the facts, the Tribunal found no evidence of such knowledge and noted that the amounts were reversed after the lapse was pointed out. The High Court treated this as a factual finding based on the same material and held that no substantial question of law arose from deletion of the penalty, so the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained in the absence of evidence that the officer had knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that invocation of Rule 209A required the authorities to establish, on record, that the officer had knowledge of the liability of the goods to confiscation. On the facts found, the officer was not shown to be aware of the applicable excise requirements, and the Tribunal recorded that the amounts were reversed after the lapse was pointed out. The High Court held that this was a factual conclusion based on the same material and that, even if another view were possible, it did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 209A was rightly set aside and the challenge to that finding failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not be entertained as no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's deletion of the personal penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be sustained only when the assessee's knowledge of the confiscability of the goods is established on the record; a concurrent factual finding negating such knowledge will not ordinarily give rise to a substantial question of law.

---