https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2643 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be imposed on a trader in the absence of evidence showing conscious knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation or that the manufacturer was wrongly availing SSI exemption. The record contained no statement or material proving that the trader knew the brand name did not belong to the manufacturer or that duty evasion was involved. Mere dealing in goods manufactured by a concern alleged to have evaded duty was insufficient to fasten penal liability. The penalty was therefore unsustainable for want of proof of the required knowledge or involvement. en-us Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2643 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be imposed on a trader in the absence of evidence showing conscious knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation or that the manufacturer was wrongly availing SSI exemption. The record contained no statement or material proving that the trader knew the brand name did not belong to the manufacturer or that duty evasion was involved. Mere dealing in goods manufactured by a concern alleged to have evaded duty was insufficient to fasten penal liability. The penalty was therefore unsustainable for want of proof of the required knowledge or involvement. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2643