https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246321 Confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained where the show-cause notice proposed action under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but the order-in-original proceeded under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The notice did not allege confiscation under those rules, so the proceedings travelled beyond the stated basis. The appellants were financiers under a hire-purchase arrangement, not manufacturers, purchasers, or registered dealers, and therefore did not fall within the class of persons liable under Rule 25. The confiscation and penalty were set aside. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:00:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246321 Confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained where the show-cause notice proposed action under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but the order-in-original proceeded under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The notice did not allege confiscation under those rules, so the proceedings travelled beyond the stated basis. The appellants were financiers under a hire-purchase arrangement, not manufacturers, purchasers, or registered dealers, and therefore did not fall within the class of persons liable under Rule 25. The confiscation and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246321