2005 (6) TMI 300 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalties under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules on the appellant for acquiring possession of excisable goods believed to be liable to confiscation.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four appeals challenging the imposition of penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The rule allows penalties on individuals who possess excisable goods they know or have reason to believe are subject to confiscation. The appellant, represented by Shri Bipin Garg, argued that they acted as dealers and lacked awareness that the goods were non-duty paid and liable to confiscation. The counsel highlighted the absence of evidence proving the appellant's knowledge of the goods' offending nature. On the other hand, the learned DR contended that as dealers, the appellants should have been aware of the non-duty paid status of the goods.

Upon review, the tribunal found no evidence indicating the appellants' awareness of the goods' non-duty paid status or their liability to confiscation. The tribunal rejected the presumption put forth by the learned DR that dealers would inherently know the nature of the goods they dealt with. The judgment emphasized that the law does not support such presumptions. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellants were deemed unjustified based on the lack of factual evidence. As a result, the penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, ruling in favor of the appellant.