9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of the case in brief are that a truck was intercepted when the driver of the truck ran away and only the cleaner of the truck was there. On interrogation, the cleaner produced the invoice when there was no indication of payment of duty, the goods were brought to the factory along with the truck and the cleaner from where the goods were lifted. The Managing Director Shri N.K. Dhiman (in sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant in reply to one of the questions only indicated that he was preparing and making entry in the PLA. The appellant was not impheated also by the MD except saying that the statutory records of Excise were being maintained by either Shri A.K. Saxena or Shri Ajay Athri. Show cause notice (SCN) was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why penalty under Rule 209A should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not warranted. Ld. Counsel submits that the adjudicating authority brought by implication that since Shri A.K. Saxena was Excise Manager, everything might have been in his knowledge. The ld. Counsel submits that this inference is not based any type of evidence produced by the Department or placed on record. Therefore, he submits that no penalty was warranted and prays that the impugned order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of penalty. He, therefore, submits that penalty was warranted in the instant case and has rightly be on imposed on the appellant. 5. We have heard the contentions of both sides. We note that for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A, knowledge of the person concerned that the goods are liable to confiscation is necessary. We note in the instant case that there is no positive evidence ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
