https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154015 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required proof that the person knowingly, or with reason to believe, dealt with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Mere coordination of job-work processing of fabrics was insufficient where the record did not show conscious participation in clearance without duty or knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. A stray statement that processed fabrics were sometimes received without bill or invoice, without supporting evidence, did not establish the necessary mens rea. The penalty was therefore not sustainable and was vacated. en-us Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:31:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154015 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required proof that the person knowingly, or with reason to believe, dealt with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Mere coordination of job-work processing of fabrics was insufficient where the record did not show conscious participation in clearance without duty or knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. A stray statement that processed fabrics were sometimes received without bill or invoice, without supporting evidence, did not establish the necessary mens rea. The penalty was therefore not sustainable and was vacated. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154015