Knowledge-based dealing required for excise penalty; mere managerial status and recovered documents were insufficient.

Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 requires proof that a person dealt with excisable goods by acquisition, transport, concealment, sale, purchase or other dealing, knowing or having reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. Mere recovery of documents from a vehicle, without a clear nexus to the alleged evasion or the impugned goods, was insufficient. The appellant's status as Managing Director alone did not establish conscious involvement. Applying the earlier Rule 209A interpretation, the Tribunal held that knowledge-based participation was not proved and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 was sustainable in the absence of proof that he dealt with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that they were liable for confiscation.

Analysis: The recovery of documents from the appellant's vehicle did not establish any nexus with the alleged evasion by the manufacturer, and no clear finding linked those documents to the impugned goods. The appellant's position as Managing Director by itself was held insufficient to justify penalty. Rule 26 was treated as requiring proof that the person dealt with excisable goods by acquisition, transport, concealment, sale, purchase, or other dealing with knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. The Tribunal applied the earlier interpretation of the corresponding provision in Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and relied on the requirement of conscious involvement in the impugned transactions.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 26 was not sustainable and was set aside.

---