TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether personal penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained against the appellants on the evidence recorded, particularly where the material relied upon consisted mainly of doubtful or retracted statements and did not establish that they knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation.
Analysis: Penalty under Rule 209A can be imposed only when a person is shown to have acquired, dealt with, removed, dispatched, kept, sold, purchased, or otherwise concerned himself with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation. The onus to establish these essential ingredients lies on the department, and the evidence must be clear and sufficient. The statements relied upon were either retracted, internally inconsistent, or found doubtful, and no independent corroboration established conscious involvement of the appellants in the clandestine activity. In these circumstances, the evidence did not prove the requisite knowledge or reason to believe, even for the period after the amendment to Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.
Conclusion: The penalties were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
