https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77702 The Department's appeals were partially allowed, reinstating the confiscation order of excess raw materials under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, but reducing the redemption fine. The penalty on the respondent company was reinstated with modifications, while the penalty on Shri Dinesh Godiyal was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized the technical violations, interpretation of rules, and lack of evidence for clandestine activities, ultimately supporting the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in setting aside penalties and confiscation. en-us Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77702 The Department's appeals were partially allowed, reinstating the confiscation order of excess raw materials under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, but reducing the redemption fine. The penalty on the respondent company was reinstated with modifications, while the penalty on Shri Dinesh Godiyal was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized the technical violations, interpretation of rules, and lack of evidence for clandestine activities, ultimately supporting the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in setting aside penalties and confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77702