https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325294 Confiscation of packing materials and chewing tobacco, and penalty under Rule 25 read with section 11AC, were held unsustainable because no central excise duty was proposed or confirmed and the alleged contraventions were not established. Packing materials were not excisable goods in the appellant's hands, so confiscation and penalty could not stand on that basis. The chewing tobacco seized from the godown was partly supported by records, while the remaining goods were not shown to have been clandestinely cleared or removed without duty. Goods seized from third-party premises also lacked verified ownership and proper notice to the custodians. The order was set aside and the appeals were allowed. en-us Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 May 2016 16:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325294 Confiscation of packing materials and chewing tobacco, and penalty under Rule 25 read with section 11AC, were held unsustainable because no central excise duty was proposed or confirmed and the alleged contraventions were not established. Packing materials were not excisable goods in the appellant's hands, so confiscation and penalty could not stand on that basis. The chewing tobacco seized from the godown was partly supported by records, while the remaining goods were not shown to have been clandestinely cleared or removed without duty. Goods seized from third-party premises also lacked verified ownership and proper notice to the custodians. The order was set aside and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325294