https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54641 Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that a person dealt with excisable goods while knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. The department bears the burden of establishing these ingredients with clear and sufficient evidence. Here, the statements relied upon were retracted, internally inconsistent or doubtful, and there was no independent corroboration of conscious involvement in clandestine activity. The evidence therefore failed to establish the requisite knowledge or reason to believe, including for the period after the amendment to Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and the penalties were set aside. en-us Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:21:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54641 Personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires proof that a person dealt with excisable goods while knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. The department bears the burden of establishing these ingredients with clear and sufficient evidence. Here, the statements relied upon were retracted, internally inconsistent or doubtful, and there was no independent corroboration of conscious involvement in clandestine activity. The evidence therefore failed to establish the requisite knowledge or reason to believe, including for the period after the amendment to Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and the penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54641