https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113396 The Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty against appellant No. 1 and penalties with confiscation of goods of appellant No. 2. It was held that appellant No. 1, as a proprietorship concern, could not be treated as a firm for duty purposes. Lack of evidence of mala fide intentions or non-accountal by appellant No. 2 led to the dismissal of penalty and confiscation. The distinct activities of the appellants and the absence of financial flow-back between them were crucial in the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals and grant any applicable relief. en-us Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 May 2012 11:27:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113396 The Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty against appellant No. 1 and penalties with confiscation of goods of appellant No. 2. It was held that appellant No. 1, as a proprietorship concern, could not be treated as a firm for duty purposes. Lack of evidence of mala fide intentions or non-accountal by appellant No. 2 led to the dismissal of penalty and confiscation. The distinct activities of the appellants and the absence of financial flow-back between them were crucial in the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals and grant any applicable relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113396