https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109239 Penalty under Rule 209A required proof that transport operators or consignment agents knew, or had reason to believe, that excisable goods were liable to confiscation; defective or incomplete documentation alone was insufficient, so the penalties were set aside. Confiscation of seized goods was nevertheless sustained because the manufacturing units had admitted clandestine removals without payment of duty and had used documents to conceal those clearances. A separate ownership challenge failed because the claimant could not establish sufficient locus standi to contest confiscation, so its appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:51:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109239 Penalty under Rule 209A required proof that transport operators or consignment agents knew, or had reason to believe, that excisable goods were liable to confiscation; defective or incomplete documentation alone was insufficient, so the penalties were set aside. Confiscation of seized goods was nevertheless sustained because the manufacturing units had admitted clandestine removals without payment of duty and had used documents to conceal those clearances. A separate ownership challenge failed because the claimant could not establish sufficient locus standi to contest confiscation, so its appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109239