https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119372 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires clear evidence that a person knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation. Mere presence or possession of empty containers, without corroboration of knowledge or involvement in clandestine clearance, is insufficient to establish the necessary ingredients for penalty. On the facts discussed, the record did not show any admission or reliable material connecting the person to the alleged evasion, so the penalty was considered unjustified and excessive in relation to the containers' negligible value. en-us Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:02:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119372 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires clear evidence that a person knowingly dealt with goods liable to confiscation. Mere presence or possession of empty containers, without corroboration of knowledge or involvement in clandestine clearance, is insufficient to establish the necessary ingredients for penalty. On the facts discussed, the record did not show any admission or reliable material connecting the person to the alleged evasion, so the penalty was considered unjustified and excessive in relation to the containers' negligible value. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119372