Full Judgment
2. These four appeals are directed against imposition of penalties under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules. It may be noted that that rule provides for imposition of penalty on any person "who acquire possession of ... any excisable goods which he knows or reason to believe are liable to confiscation". The submission of the learned Counsel in these appeals is that the appellants dealt with the offending goods in their capacity as dealer and that there is no evidence on record which is indicative of the appellants being aware that the goods supplied to them were non-duty paid and liable to confiscation for that reason. Learned Counsel, therefore, contends that imposition of penalty is without any factual basis. He has taken me through the show cause notice and findings to show that there is no material on record showing the appellant's awareness of the offending nature of the goods. As against this, the submission of the learned DR is that since appellants were dealers they would have been aware of the non-duty paid nature of the goods.
3. The materials on record do not show any awareness on the part of the appellants that the goods were not duty paid or they were liable to confiscation. The contention of the learned DR that as dealers they would have been aware of the real nature of the goods is in the realm of presumption. Law contains no such presumption. The penalties imposed are not justified by the evidence on record. They are set aside and the appeals are allowed.