https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45577 Mens rea was treated as essential for liability under Rule 151(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 9(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, because the wording contemplated attribution only where the owner acted himself or where knowledge or connivance was proved. The court's reasoning rejected absolute liability, since that reading would make the qualifying language redundant and was not compelled by the fiscal object of the enactment. On the same basis, criminal liability under Section 9(b) for duty evasion based on shortages caused by a servant could not be imposed without proof connecting the respondent to the removal. The acquittal was upheld. en-us Mon, 05 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:52:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45577 Mens rea was treated as essential for liability under Rule 151(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 9(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, because the wording contemplated attribution only where the owner acted himself or where knowledge or connivance was proved. The court's reasoning rejected absolute liability, since that reading would make the qualifying language redundant and was not compelled by the fiscal object of the enactment. On the same basis, criminal liability under Section 9(b) for duty evasion based on shortages caused by a servant could not be imposed without proof connecting the respondent to the removal. The acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45577