JUDGMENT It is not in dispute that the liability to excise duty and prepare proper documents as required under the law is that of the manufacturer. The allegation as made in the notices (Ann. 'A' and 'B') is to the effect that it was the manufacturer who had cleared the goods without proper gate pass. The petitioners are charged with abettment. The show cause notices itself reveal that the manufacturer had paid full duty for 5 m.t. but the gate pass was only for 1 M.T.. Thus, so far as payment of excise duty is concerned, there was no evasion even on the part of the manufacturer. At best it could be a case of technical default only. It is also alleged that the goods seized by the Excise department were not zinc waste and scrap but zinc ingots for which higher duty was payable. The only question which falls for decision in this petition is whether on the basis of material on record the transporter, driver and helper could be attributable with knowledge or could they be presumed to have the requisite knowledge of reason to believe that the goods they were transporting were liable to be confiscated. It is clear from the record that the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 had contracted to purchase 5 M.T. duty paid zinc scrap. The petitioner No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle and a mere transporter cannot be expected to know technical nature of the goods which he was required to transport nor was he as a matter of fact present at the time of loading. The petitioner No.2 who is an illiterate driver, similarly not expected to check the documents in their minds the legal details and technicalities. It could be a case of some default on the part of the manufacturer in preparing the documents. But on that account it would be too much to infer that the owner; driver of the vehicle and buyer of the goods who was purchasing duty paid goods had abetted the manufacturer in releasing the goods without proper cover of documents. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1990 E.L.T. 343, B.R. Sule v. Union of India submitted that the present decision applies on all force to the case at hand. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1990 E.L.T. 343, B.R. Sule v. Union of India submitted that the present decision applies on all force to the case at hand. Shri Neema, learned standing counsel appearing for the Union of India on the other hand inviting attention to rule 173 (q) of the Rules and placing reliance on a decision in 1988 E.L.T. 391, Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector contended that the notices issued and the action taken by the respondents were quite proper. The case relied upon by the respondents is clearly distinguishable. From the material available on record and in the view of the statements made by the petitioners, it cannot be said that there is material enough for the respondents to form an opinion that the petitioners were in any manner guilty of any violation of law or rules or they had any reason to believe that the goods they were transporting were liable to be confiscated. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1990 ELT (supra) this petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with costs. The show cause notices (Ann. 'A' and 'B') issued by the respondents stand quashed. Consequently the seizure memos Ann. 'C' and 'D' and the action taken by the respondents for seizure is declared to be illegal. The bonds and security furnished stand discharged. Counsel's fee Rs. 2,500/-, if certified.