https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81628 Confiscation of a vehicle and imposition of penalty were sustainable only where the vehicle was used to carry contraband and the owner had knowledge of, connived in, or failed to take reasonable precautions against such use. On the facts discussed, the show cause notice and record did not establish those ingredients for action under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was inapplicable because the appellants were not manufacturers of the goods, and there was no evidence that they knew or had reason to believe the vehicle would be used to transport goods liable to confiscation. No material showed knowing participation or connivance. en-us Mon, 24 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:56:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81628 Confiscation of a vehicle and imposition of penalty were sustainable only where the vehicle was used to carry contraband and the owner had knowledge of, connived in, or failed to take reasonable precautions against such use. On the facts discussed, the show cause notice and record did not establish those ingredients for action under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was inapplicable because the appellants were not manufacturers of the goods, and there was no evidence that they knew or had reason to believe the vehicle would be used to transport goods liable to confiscation. No material showed knowing participation or connivance. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81628