https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81367 Penalty under Rule 173Q for alleged contravention of Rule 52A read with Rule 173G was held unsustainable because the record did not prove unauthorised removal or false documentation, and the benefit of doubt went to the assessees. Redemption fine was also set aside because the goods had already been released and were not available for confiscation, making confiscation and fine unsustainable; the proper recourse was on the bond. However, penalty under Rule 210 for breach of Rule 51 and Rule 193 was upheld because the required packaging and marking compliance was not shown, and no lawful exemption was established. en-us Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:22:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81367 Penalty under Rule 173Q for alleged contravention of Rule 52A read with Rule 173G was held unsustainable because the record did not prove unauthorised removal or false documentation, and the benefit of doubt went to the assessees. Redemption fine was also set aside because the goods had already been released and were not available for confiscation, making confiscation and fine unsustainable; the proper recourse was on the bond. However, penalty under Rule 210 for breach of Rule 51 and Rule 193 was upheld because the required packaging and marking compliance was not shown, and no lawful exemption was established. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81367