https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101635 Confiscation and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained against buyers where no material showed that they knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. The proceedings rested on an alleged duty short-payment by the manufacturer, but that alone did not establish the buyers' requisite knowledge. The long delay after seizure also made redemption fine and penalty inappropriate on the facts. The confiscation order and buyer penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:04:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101635 Confiscation and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained against buyers where no material showed that they knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. The proceedings rested on an alleged duty short-payment by the manufacturer, but that alone did not establish the buyers' requisite knowledge. The long delay after seizure also made redemption fine and penalty inappropriate on the facts. The confiscation order and buyer penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101635