https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112866 Confiscation and excise duty demand on seized processed fabrics were found unsustainable because the department failed to prove that the goods were non-duty-paid or to identify the actual processor. The reasoning applied the settled rule that excise liability for processed fabrics attaches to the person who undertakes the processing or manufacture, not merely to the trader in possession of the goods. In the absence of evidence linking the seized fabrics to a named processor and establishing their contraband character, redemption fine and penalties could not be imposed on the respondent firm. The Revenue appeal failed, and the respondent was left free from the duty and penal consequences sought. en-us Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2012 12:31:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112866 Confiscation and excise duty demand on seized processed fabrics were found unsustainable because the department failed to prove that the goods were non-duty-paid or to identify the actual processor. The reasoning applied the settled rule that excise liability for processed fabrics attaches to the person who undertakes the processing or manufacture, not merely to the trader in possession of the goods. In the absence of evidence linking the seized fabrics to a named processor and establishing their contraband character, redemption fine and penalties could not be imposed on the respondent firm. The Revenue appeal failed, and the respondent was left free from the duty and penal consequences sought. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112866