https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81531 Penalty under Rule 209A requires proof that the person knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation, while Rule 52A(5) is attracted where excisable goods are moved without a valid gate pass. Applying these principles, the consignor was not liable because the consignment break-up at transhipment occurred without its knowledge and no material showed the required awareness. Confiscation of the cigarettes was also set aside. The transport corporation, however, was found to have split the consignment and carried part of it on a photocopy of the gate pass, so the gate-pass violation under Rule 52A(5) stood, but the penalty under Rule 209A was rejected for want of knowledge. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:50:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81531 Penalty under Rule 209A requires proof that the person knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation, while Rule 52A(5) is attracted where excisable goods are moved without a valid gate pass. Applying these principles, the consignor was not liable because the consignment break-up at transhipment occurred without its knowledge and no material showed the required awareness. Confiscation of the cigarettes was also set aside. The transport corporation, however, was found to have split the consignment and carried part of it on a photocopy of the gate pass, so the gate-pass violation under Rule 52A(5) stood, but the penalty under Rule 209A was rejected for want of knowledge. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81531