Rule 209A penalty requires proof of knowledge or involvement; mere ownership of premises is insufficient.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be fastened on the owner of premises merely because illegal activities occurred there. The record must show that the person was concerned with, aware of, or otherwise linked to the offending conduct. Where no material establishes participation, knowledge, or connection beyond ownership of the premises, penal liability is not sustainable and the penalty must be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained against the owner of the premises in the absence of evidence that he was concerned with the alleged evasion or had knowledge of the illegal activities.

Analysis: The only basis for the penalty was that the appellant was the owner of the premises where the alleged illegal activities were carried on by another person. No material on record showed that the appellant participated in, was aware of, or had any connection with those activities beyond ownership of the premises. Rule 209A required a link with the offending conduct, and mere ownership without evidence of knowledge or involvement was insufficient to attract penal consequences.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The order imposing penalty on the premises owner was annulled because the necessary evidentiary basis for fastening penal responsibility under Rule 209A was absent.

Ratio Decidendi: Penal liability under Rule 209A cannot be imposed on a person solely on the basis of ownership of premises unless the record establishes knowledge of, or concern with, the offending activities.

---