https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447 Penalty under the Central Excise Rules must be proportionate to the circumstances, and where duty had already been deposited, a reduced company penalty was considered sufficient. Interest under Section 11AB could not be demanded for a period before that provision came into force, so the interest claim failed. Confiscation of plant, machinery and building was unwarranted on the facts after duty payment and was set aside. Penalties on the Director and Manager under Rule 209A could not be sustained because there was no finding that goods were liable to confiscation, and those penalties were annulled. en-us Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447 Penalty under the Central Excise Rules must be proportionate to the circumstances, and where duty had already been deposited, a reduced company penalty was considered sufficient. Interest under Section 11AB could not be demanded for a period before that provision came into force, so the interest claim failed. Confiscation of plant, machinery and building was unwarranted on the facts after duty payment and was set aside. Penalties on the Director and Manager under Rule 209A could not be sustained because there was no finding that goods were liable to confiscation, and those penalties were annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447