https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108467 Confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise framework were not justified where the record showed prior intimation that goods were being sent for filtration and some processing at the second premises, but the adjudication proceeded on mutually inconsistent findings about whether that premises was only storage or was being used for processing/job work. In the absence of a clear finding of unauthorised removal, any confirmed duty demand, or a consistent basis for alleging misuse of the Cenvat facility, the punitive order could not be sustained. The confiscation and penalty were set aside, with liberty to regularise the second premises for storage or processing and account for the goods lawfully. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:16:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108467 Confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise framework were not justified where the record showed prior intimation that goods were being sent for filtration and some processing at the second premises, but the adjudication proceeded on mutually inconsistent findings about whether that premises was only storage or was being used for processing/job work. In the absence of a clear finding of unauthorised removal, any confirmed duty demand, or a consistent basis for alleging misuse of the Cenvat facility, the punitive order could not be sustained. The confiscation and penalty were set aside, with liberty to regularise the second premises for storage or processing and account for the goods lawfully. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108467