https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123514 Mere non-accountal of excisable goods in an approved godown, without proof that invoices were issued without delivery of goods, did not justify confiscation or redemption fine under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 52A was treated as inapplicable on the facts, and the alleged irregularity was attributed to storage constraints rather than the specific misuse alleged in the notice. A contravention of the rules was still found, so a limited penalty was warranted against the registered dealer, but the dealer's penalty was reduced and the penalty on the authorised signatory was set aside. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:42:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123514 Mere non-accountal of excisable goods in an approved godown, without proof that invoices were issued without delivery of goods, did not justify confiscation or redemption fine under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 52A was treated as inapplicable on the facts, and the alleged irregularity was attributed to storage constraints rather than the specific misuse alleged in the notice. A contravention of the rules was still found, so a limited penalty was warranted against the registered dealer, but the dealer's penalty was reduced and the penalty on the authorised signatory was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123514