https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118739 Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a) and (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be imposed on a trader or buyer of processed fabrics where the notice made no specific allegation of knowledge, reason to believe, or active involvement in the alleged illicit clearance. The provision was held inapplicable on the recorded facts because the appellant was only a trader/buyer, not the assessee, and there was no proof of connivance or abetment. In the absence of specific notice and supporting evidence linking the appellant to goods liable to confiscation or illegal removal, the penalty was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:28:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118739 Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a) and (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be imposed on a trader or buyer of processed fabrics where the notice made no specific allegation of knowledge, reason to believe, or active involvement in the alleged illicit clearance. The provision was held inapplicable on the recorded facts because the appellant was only a trader/buyer, not the assessee, and there was no proof of connivance or abetment. In the absence of specific notice and supporting evidence linking the appellant to goods liable to confiscation or illegal removal, the penalty was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118739