https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89090 Penalty under Rule 209A requires proof that the person proceeded against knew, or had reason to know, that the goods were liable to confiscation because they had been cleared without payment of duty. The burden lies on the Revenue to establish that knowledge, and mere execution of work under a purchase order or receipt of goods at the appellant's premises is not enough by itself. On the material considered, the Revenue had not discharged that burden, and the appellant therefore established a prima facie case for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the penalty pending appeal. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:01:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89090 Penalty under Rule 209A requires proof that the person proceeded against knew, or had reason to know, that the goods were liable to confiscation because they had been cleared without payment of duty. The burden lies on the Revenue to establish that knowledge, and mere execution of work under a purchase order or receipt of goods at the appellant's premises is not enough by itself. On the material considered, the Revenue had not discharged that burden, and the appellant therefore established a prima facie case for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the penalty pending appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89090