<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (10) TMI 146 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI [LB]</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35028</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires actual dealing with excisable goods, together with knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The provision was read as covering acts such as possession, transport, removal, deposit, concealment, sale or purchase, and not as extending to mere invoice-based involvement without physical movement of goods. The same requirement of knowledge was treated as applicable to companies and corporations, so penalty cannot be fastened on a corporate entity unless the statutory mental element is established. The rule was thus understood as directed at persons knowingly involved in the goods, not at indirect participants lacking such knowledge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:00:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 146 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI [LB]</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35028</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires actual dealing with excisable goods, together with knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The provision was read as covering acts such as possession, transport, removal, deposit, concealment, sale or purchase, and not as extending to mere invoice-based involvement without physical movement of goods. The same requirement of knowledge was treated as applicable to companies and corporations, so penalty cannot be fastened on a corporate entity unless the statutory mental element is established. The rule was thus understood as directed at persons knowingly involved in the goods, not at indirect participants lacking such knowledge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>