https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114096 Clearances of seven jeeps under Rule 57F(2) job-work challans did not support the duty demand, because the levy was not exigible from the appellant on the facts and the excisability of the underlying activity was itself disputed; the demand was set aside. As the duty demand failed, confiscation of the jeeps and the redemption fine could not survive, and the penalty under Rule 173Q was also held unjustified and disproportionate; these were likewise set aside. The issue concerning reversal of Modvat credit was left untouched. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2012 11:45:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114096 Clearances of seven jeeps under Rule 57F(2) job-work challans did not support the duty demand, because the levy was not exigible from the appellant on the facts and the excisability of the underlying activity was itself disputed; the demand was set aside. As the duty demand failed, confiscation of the jeeps and the redemption fine could not survive, and the penalty under Rule 173Q was also held unjustified and disproportionate; these were likewise set aside. The issue concerning reversal of Modvat credit was left untouched. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114096