ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In these Appeals, the impugned order regarding confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and confirmation of duty and penalty except on Appellant No. 2, has been contested by the learned Advocate. Learned Counsel has only prayed for the reduction in the redemption fine and penalties on the ground that there was no willful or intentional evasion of the duty and these goods were a day earlier production, when the officers visited the factory. After going through the record, in my view, the prayer of the learned Counsel, deserves to be accepted. Redemption fine on the confiscation of the goods and the penalties imposed on the appellant No. 1, as detailed in the Order-in-Original, are reduced to 50%. However the imposition of penalty on Appellant No. 2 under Rule 209A in my view is not at all tenable as the conditions laid down in the said Rule do not stand satisfied. Shri Pramod Kumar Gupta, had nothing to do with the confiscated goods or their disposal. He is only brother of Vinod Kumar, one of the Directors of the Appellant No. 1 and owner of vehicle, but on this ground he could not be penalized under Rule 209A, as he never handled the goods which he knew were liable to be confiscated. The penalties imposed against him are set aside.
2. Accordingly, the impugned order stands modified. The Appeals of the Appellants stand disposed of in the above terms.
(Pronounced in the Court)