https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49876 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that the person dealt with goods while knowing or having reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation. The commentary notes that this ingredient was not shown against any of the three company officers. The chairman was linked only by inference from his position, without evidence of participation or specific knowledge; the vice-president was connected mainly to acts predating the rule's application; and the commercial manager's signing and filing of price lists did not establish that he made or knowingly joined the undervaluation decision. On that reasoning, the penalties were held unsustainable. en-us Mon, 22 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:34:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49876 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that the person dealt with goods while knowing or having reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation. The commentary notes that this ingredient was not shown against any of the three company officers. The chairman was linked only by inference from his position, without evidence of participation or specific knowledge; the vice-president was connected mainly to acts predating the rule's application; and the commercial manager's signing and filing of price lists did not establish that he made or knowingly joined the undervaluation decision. On that reasoning, the penalties were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49876