Personal penalty under Rule 209A fails without proof of knowledge that goods were liable to confiscation.

Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules requires evidence that the person dealt with goods knowing they were liable to confiscation. Mere assertion that the appellant had such knowledge is insufficient unless the adjudicating authority identifies facts or circumstances supporting that inference. Where no evidence or clear finding establishes the requisite knowledge, the statutory condition for penalty is not met. The penalty under Rule 209A was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable in the absence of material showing that the appellant had knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Personal penalty under Rule 209A requires proof that the person concerned was involved with the goods with knowledge that the goods had been rendered liable to confiscation. The adjudicating authority merely recorded a conclusion that the appellant had dealt with the goods knowing them to be liable to confiscation, but did not identify the circumstances from which such knowledge could be inferred. In the absence of any evidence or clear findings establishing the necessary knowledge, the statutory requirement for imposing the penalty was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 209A was not justified and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---