Personal penalty under Rule 209A requires proof of active involvement and knowledge before liability can attach.

Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires evidence that the person was actually concerned with transporting, removing, keeping, concealing, selling, purchasing, or otherwise dealing with excisable goods, and that he knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. Mere references in records or receipt of sale proceeds, without proof of the requisite nexus and knowledge, are insufficient to attract the penalty. On the material available, the appellant's participation in clandestine clearance was not established, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable against the appellant for alleged concern with clandestine clearance and sale proceeds of excisable goods.

Analysis: The material on record did not establish that the appellant was concerned with transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling, purchasing, or otherwise dealing with the goods in the manner required by Rule 209A. The appellant's statement did not disclose knowledge of, or participation in, the clearance or sale of the goods, and the record did not show that he knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Mere reference to entries in records or receipt of sale proceeds, without proof of the requisite nexus and knowledge, was insufficient to attract personal penalty under the rule.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 209A was not justified; the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt and the penalty was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal penalty under Rule 209A can be imposed only when there is evidence that the person was actually concerned with one of the specified dealings in excisable goods and knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation.

---