https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170580 A cryptic and unreasoned adjudication on proposed central excise penalties was unsustainable because the authority had not examined the returns, the required declaration, the duty-paid character of the goods, or whether the ingredients for penalty under Rule 57-I and Rule 173Q were satisfied. The record also did not show proper consideration of whether the goods had suffered compounded levy under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the show cause notice invoked two separate penal provisions, each required a distinct finding on the material on record. The exonerating orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication and de novo consideration with a fair hearing. en-us Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:06:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170580 A cryptic and unreasoned adjudication on proposed central excise penalties was unsustainable because the authority had not examined the returns, the required declaration, the duty-paid character of the goods, or whether the ingredients for penalty under Rule 57-I and Rule 173Q were satisfied. The record also did not show proper consideration of whether the goods had suffered compounded levy under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the show cause notice invoked two separate penal provisions, each required a distinct finding on the material on record. The exonerating orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication and de novo consideration with a fair hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170580