https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115598 Penal and confiscatory action against a transporter cannot be sustained where the tempo owner and driver acted in the ordinary course of carriage, obtained delivery challans, and no overt act, concert, or knowledge of alleged non-duty-paid clearance was recorded. The confiscation direction was also unsustainable after rescission of Rule 173Q(2). Separately, proceedings against the EOU, the DTA unit, and connected individuals were void because the Commissioner of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction over an EOU administratively under the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The demand, confiscation, and penalties were therefore set aside, and the adjudication was quashed. en-us Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 May 2012 13:15:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115598 Penal and confiscatory action against a transporter cannot be sustained where the tempo owner and driver acted in the ordinary course of carriage, obtained delivery challans, and no overt act, concert, or knowledge of alleged non-duty-paid clearance was recorded. The confiscation direction was also unsustainable after rescission of Rule 173Q(2). Separately, proceedings against the EOU, the DTA unit, and connected individuals were void because the Commissioner of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction over an EOU administratively under the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The demand, confiscation, and penalties were therefore set aside, and the adjudication was quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115598