https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115385 Redemption fine and excise penalties were reduced where the Tribunal found the original quantum excessive in light of the surrounding circumstances and the absence of wilful evasion. The penalty on the second appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside because mere relationship with a director and ownership of the vehicle did not establish the required knowing involvement with goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal treated specific conditions under Rule 209A as essential and held that they were not satisfied on the facts. en-us Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 May 2012 12:22:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115385 Redemption fine and excise penalties were reduced where the Tribunal found the original quantum excessive in light of the surrounding circumstances and the absence of wilful evasion. The penalty on the second appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside because mere relationship with a director and ownership of the vehicle did not establish the required knowing involvement with goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal treated specific conditions under Rule 209A as essential and held that they were not satisfied on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115385