https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116993 In a remand-based excise quantification dispute, the duty demand was to be computed from raw material consumption data, and unsupported claims of wastage or process loss were rejected. An earlier unchallenged finding on cum-duty treatment remained final and could not be reopened in collateral proceedings. Confiscation and redemption fine on seized consignments were set aside because the consignments did not prima facie fall within the duty demand period. The manufacturer's penalty was sustained as clandestine removal and evasion remained established, but personal penalties on directors were annulled because the penal provision targeted the manufacturer and no specific individual involvement was found. The Revenue could not expand the remand beyond its limited scope. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:06:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116993 In a remand-based excise quantification dispute, the duty demand was to be computed from raw material consumption data, and unsupported claims of wastage or process loss were rejected. An earlier unchallenged finding on cum-duty treatment remained final and could not be reopened in collateral proceedings. Confiscation and redemption fine on seized consignments were set aside because the consignments did not prima facie fall within the duty demand period. The manufacturer's penalty was sustained as clandestine removal and evasion remained established, but personal penalties on directors were annulled because the penal provision targeted the manufacturer and no specific individual involvement was found. The Revenue could not expand the remand beyond its limited scope. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116993