https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107893 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that the person knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation, or did so with reasonable belief of that liability. Mere reference to a production pattern or general allegations of evasion is insufficient without material linking the Managing Director to the alleged illegal activity. As there was no evidence of his involvement in clearance of goods or day-to-day operations, the factual foundation for penalty was absent and the penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:45:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107893 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that the person knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation, or did so with reasonable belief of that liability. Mere reference to a production pattern or general allegations of evasion is insufficient without material linking the Managing Director to the alleged illegal activity. As there was no evidence of his involvement in clearance of goods or day-to-day operations, the factual foundation for penalty was absent and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107893