https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49869 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires evidence that the person had knowledge or reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation. On the facts stated, the penalties on the two partners were not sustainable because the record did not show personal knowledge or conscious involvement in the clearances. The power of attorney holder, however, admitted signing invoices, recovering amounts from customers, and failing to reflect actual clearances in statutory records, which established conscious participation in unrecorded removals. The penalty against him was upheld in principle, but reduced as excessive on the facts. en-us Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:23:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49869 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires evidence that the person had knowledge or reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation. On the facts stated, the penalties on the two partners were not sustainable because the record did not show personal knowledge or conscious involvement in the clearances. The power of attorney holder, however, admitted signing invoices, recovering amounts from customers, and failing to reflect actual clearances in statutory records, which established conscious participation in unrecorded removals. The penalty against him was upheld in principle, but reduced as excessive on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49869