https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84110 Under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the recovery machinery was treated as sufficient for collection of duty, but not as authority to impose confiscation, fine or personal penalty absent clear statutory sanction, so those punitive consequences were set aside. The additional excise duty demand was nevertheless sustained because the seized processed fabrics were found without duty-paying documents and the appellants did not establish a reliable link between the seized stock and any duty discharge by the named job workers. On those facts, the merchant manufacturers remained liable for the duty where actual payment by the processors was not proved. en-us Wed, 22 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:32:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84110 Under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the recovery machinery was treated as sufficient for collection of duty, but not as authority to impose confiscation, fine or personal penalty absent clear statutory sanction, so those punitive consequences were set aside. The additional excise duty demand was nevertheless sustained because the seized processed fabrics were found without duty-paying documents and the appellants did not establish a reliable link between the seized stock and any duty discharge by the named job workers. On those facts, the merchant manufacturers remained liable for the duty where actual payment by the processors was not proved. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84110