https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770945 CESTAT Mumbai set aside penalty imposed on warehouse operator under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant merely provided warehousing services for PTY manufactured by another company and had no knowledge of alleged misdeclaration or undervaluation leading to duty evasion. The tribunal held that penalty under Rule 209A requires proof that the person had knowledge or reason to believe goods were liable to confiscation. Since no goods were actually confiscated and no evidence established appellant's knowledge of evasion, the penalty was legally unsustainable. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770945 CESTAT Mumbai set aside penalty imposed on warehouse operator under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant merely provided warehousing services for PTY manufactured by another company and had no knowledge of alleged misdeclaration or undervaluation leading to duty evasion. The tribunal held that penalty under Rule 209A requires proof that the person had knowledge or reason to believe goods were liable to confiscation. Since no goods were actually confiscated and no evidence established appellant's knowledge of evasion, the penalty was legally unsustainable. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770945