https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770945 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be imposed on a warehouse operator where the record showed only warehousing and delivery of goods on the basis of delivery orders and excise invoices. The department failed to prove, by cogent evidence, that the operator participated in undervaluation, prepared false documents, or had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Mere suspicion was insufficient, and the absence of confiscation of the goods further weakened the basis for penalty. The principle applied is that liability under Rule 209A requires proof of knowing involvement in dealing with goods liable to confiscation or conduct facilitating evasion. en-us Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 15:23:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770945 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be imposed on a warehouse operator where the record showed only warehousing and delivery of goods on the basis of delivery orders and excise invoices. The department failed to prove, by cogent evidence, that the operator participated in undervaluation, prepared false documents, or had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Mere suspicion was insufficient, and the absence of confiscation of the goods further weakened the basis for penalty. The principle applied is that liability under Rule 209A requires proof of knowing involvement in dealing with goods liable to confiscation or conduct facilitating evasion. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770945