https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124543 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where an earlier order on identical facts had already found no evidence that the appellants knew the yarn was non-duty-paid and had set aside penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that the same factual matrix could not support a fresh penalty merely by invoking a different provision, because there was no change in the underlying facts and the prior finding had already negated penal liability. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and set aside. en-us Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:53:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124543 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where an earlier order on identical facts had already found no evidence that the appellants knew the yarn was non-duty-paid and had set aside penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that the same factual matrix could not support a fresh penalty merely by invoking a different provision, because there was no change in the underlying facts and the prior finding had already negated penal liability. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124543