https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117047 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 remained invocable even though the goods were not physically available for confiscation, because their confiscable character was not lost on that account. With the duty demand already confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the dispute was confined to penalty. The Tribunal also held that the reduced penalty failed to reflect the statutory minimum prescribed under Rule 25, so the penalty had to be enhanced to the minimum amount required by the rule. en-us Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:44:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117047 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 remained invocable even though the goods were not physically available for confiscation, because their confiscable character was not lost on that account. With the duty demand already confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the dispute was confined to penalty. The Tribunal also held that the reduced penalty failed to reflect the statutory minimum prescribed under Rule 25, so the penalty had to be enhanced to the minimum amount required by the rule. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117047