Double penalty under Rule 209A for the same facts was not sustainable, and the later penalty was set aside.

A second penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be sustained where a penalty has already been imposed for the same act, same transaction and same facts. The text notes that one penalty had earlier been levied for acquiring possession of excisable goods, and the later penalty was examined only on whether a further penal consequence could follow on identical grounds. Applying that principle, the later penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be imposed a second time on the same facts and same transaction.

Analysis: A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh had already been imposed on the appellant under Rule 209A for acquiring possession of the excisable goods. The impugned order imposed another penalty under the same rule on the basis of the same transaction and the same facts. Since the Revenue did not dispute the earlier penalty, the later penalty was examined only on the question whether a second penal consequence could follow for the same conduct.

Conclusion: The second penalty under Rule 209A was not sustainable on the same facts and same transaction, and the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a penalty has already been imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the same act and facts, a second penalty on the same basis cannot be sustained.

---