Penalty under Rule 209A requires evidence linking the person to the supplier's offence; absent proof, the charge fails.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires material showing that the person sought to be penalised was concerned with, or privy to, the supplier's offence relating to evasion of excise duty. Where the record contains no direct or indirect evidence linking that person to the offence, the penal charge cannot be sustained. In such penal proceedings, the benefit of doubt operates in favour of the noticee, and the penalty is not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable in the absence of evidence connecting the appellant with the supplier's alleged offence relating to evasion of excise duty.

Analysis: The charge under Rule 209A required some material showing that the appellant was concerned with, or privy to, the commission of an offence in relation to evasion of duty by the supplier. The record contained no evidence directly or indirectly linking the appellant to such offence. As the proceeding was penal in nature, the absence of evidence entitled the appellant to the benefit of doubt.

Conclusion: The penalty was not justified and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned penalty order was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under Rule 209A cannot be sustained unless there is evidence connecting the person sought to be penalised with the commission of the offence; in penal proceedings, doubt must operate in favour of the noticee.

---