https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437756 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires conscious physical dealing with excisable goods and knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation; mere clerical or accounting work does not satisfy the statutory ingredients. On that reasoning, an accountant who had no role in the physical movement or handling of the goods would fall outside the scope of the provision and penalty would not be sustainable. The text also notes that an adjudication order passed without effective notice of personal hearing or proper opportunity to appear is procedurally defective and contrary to natural justice, rendering the order vulnerable on that ground as well. en-us Fri, 12 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 May 2023 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437756 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires conscious physical dealing with excisable goods and knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation; mere clerical or accounting work does not satisfy the statutory ingredients. On that reasoning, an accountant who had no role in the physical movement or handling of the goods would fall outside the scope of the provision and penalty would not be sustainable. The text also notes that an adjudication order passed without effective notice of personal hearing or proper opportunity to appear is procedurally defective and contrary to natural justice, rendering the order vulnerable on that ground as well. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437756