https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97226 Confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise Rules depended on proof of a breach of the declaration requirement under Rule 173B, but the record did not show that the branded goods were manufactured beyond the period relevant for filing the declaration. In the absence of documentary evidence establishing manufacture more than 30 days before detection, the date of detection was treated as the relevant date for affixation of the brand name, and the alleged violation was not proved. Rule 226 was also held inapplicable on the facts. The confiscation and penalty were therefore not sustainable. en-us Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:38:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97226 Confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise Rules depended on proof of a breach of the declaration requirement under Rule 173B, but the record did not show that the branded goods were manufactured beyond the period relevant for filing the declaration. In the absence of documentary evidence establishing manufacture more than 30 days before detection, the date of detection was treated as the relevant date for affixation of the brand name, and the alleged violation was not proved. Rule 226 was also held inapplicable on the facts. The confiscation and penalty were therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97226