https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82901 Confiscation of a crane and penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held unsustainable where the same duty-paid consignment, covered by a gate pass, had been taken back to the factory for rebalancing and then removed again the next day. The accepted finding was that there was no second consignment or double transport under the same gate pass, so the later movement was not a fresh removal in breach of Rule 52A. On those facts, the provisions governing retention and return of duty-paid goods were not attracted, and the absence of immediate intimation did not justify penal consequences. en-us Fri, 07 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:02:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82901 Confiscation of a crane and penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held unsustainable where the same duty-paid consignment, covered by a gate pass, had been taken back to the factory for rebalancing and then removed again the next day. The accepted finding was that there was no second consignment or double transport under the same gate pass, so the later movement was not a fresh removal in breach of Rule 52A. On those facts, the provisions governing retention and return of duty-paid goods were not attracted, and the absence of immediate intimation did not justify penal consequences. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82901