https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122064 Penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not sustainable where the excisability of the goods was unsettled during the relevant period and knowledge of liability to confiscation was not proved. The goods were ammonium nitrate converted from lower to higher purity, and the question whether such conversion amounted to manufacture had remained subject to conflicting views until a later Larger Bench ruling. In that setting, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt on the allegation that they knowingly dealt with confiscable goods, and the requisite mens rea for penalty was not established. The penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:18:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122064 Penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not sustainable where the excisability of the goods was unsettled during the relevant period and knowledge of liability to confiscation was not proved. The goods were ammonium nitrate converted from lower to higher purity, and the question whether such conversion amounted to manufacture had remained subject to conflicting views until a later Larger Bench ruling. In that setting, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt on the allegation that they knowingly dealt with confiscable goods, and the requisite mens rea for penalty was not established. The penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122064