https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121161 CESTAT considered reduction of redemption fines and penalties under Central Excise Rules. The reduced redemption fines were sustained because the appellate authority exercised discretion by linking the amount to the market value of the confiscated goods, and the Revenue did not dispute that nexus. On Rule 173Q, the Tribunal held that the minimum penalty is Rs. 5,000, following Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and treated contrary views as no longer valid; the lower penalties were therefore increased to that minimum on each count. The appeal against the partner failed because the alleged contraventions were not covered by Rule 209A, which applies to abetment involving goods liable to confiscation. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:05:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121161 CESTAT considered reduction of redemption fines and penalties under Central Excise Rules. The reduced redemption fines were sustained because the appellate authority exercised discretion by linking the amount to the market value of the confiscated goods, and the Revenue did not dispute that nexus. On Rule 173Q, the Tribunal held that the minimum penalty is Rs. 5,000, following Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and treated contrary views as no longer valid; the lower penalties were therefore increased to that minimum on each count. The appeal against the partner failed because the alleged contraventions were not covered by Rule 209A, which applies to abetment involving goods liable to confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121161