https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326957 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that the person dealt with excisable goods, that the goods were liable to confiscation, and that the person knew or had reason to believe that position. The HC held that an importer who was not engaged in manufacture could not be penalised on these facts because the goods were not excisable goods in his hands and became excisable only after manufacture by the purchaser. There was also no material showing evasion of duty or clandestine removal while the goods were with the importer, so the penalty was not sustainable. en-us Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326957 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that the person dealt with excisable goods, that the goods were liable to confiscation, and that the person knew or had reason to believe that position. The HC held that an importer who was not engaged in manufacture could not be penalised on these facts because the goods were not excisable goods in his hands and became excisable only after manufacture by the purchaser. There was also no material showing evasion of duty or clandestine removal while the goods were with the importer, so the penalty was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326957