https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202139 Confiscation of land, plant and machinery under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained because the enabling provision had already been deleted before adjudication, so the confiscation was set aside. Penalties on the directors were also unsustainable because the Revenue had not filed any appeal against the original relief granted in their favour, and remand could not enlarge the scope of challenge. The duty demand for clandestine removal against the manufacturing units was upheld, together with consequential penalty, subject to the option of reduced penalty if duty, interest, and the prescribed portion of penalty were paid within the permitted period. en-us Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202139 Confiscation of land, plant and machinery under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained because the enabling provision had already been deleted before adjudication, so the confiscation was set aside. Penalties on the directors were also unsustainable because the Revenue had not filed any appeal against the original relief granted in their favour, and remand could not enlarge the scope of challenge. The duty demand for clandestine removal against the manufacturing units was upheld, together with consequential penalty, subject to the option of reduced penalty if duty, interest, and the prescribed portion of penalty were paid within the permitted period. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202139