https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90619 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depended on proof of conscious involvement or abetment in dealing with non-duty-paid biris. For petty dealers, bunk shop owners and Raj Trading Co., the record did not show such knowledge, and the alleged tearing of bills alone was insufficient; those penalties were set aside. For other persons who possessed the goods and had made inculpatory statements, liability was maintained because participation was established, but the penalties were reduced where the role was limited and the original amounts were excessive. The commentary states that benefit of doubt applies where the underlying transaction is doubtful. en-us Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:11:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90619 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depended on proof of conscious involvement or abetment in dealing with non-duty-paid biris. For petty dealers, bunk shop owners and Raj Trading Co., the record did not show such knowledge, and the alleged tearing of bills alone was insufficient; those penalties were set aside. For other persons who possessed the goods and had made inculpatory statements, liability was maintained because participation was established, but the penalties were reduced where the role was limited and the original amounts were excessive. The commentary states that benefit of doubt applies where the underlying transaction is doubtful. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90619