https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335880 The Tribunal allowed Appeal No.1053/2009, setting aside the confiscation order due to discrepancies in stock records and evidence presented. In Appeal No.1054/2009, the penalty imposed on the Managing Director was reduced from &8377; 10,00,000 to &8377; 1,00,000, considering the proportionality principle under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment emphasized the need for penalties to align with the offense committed, ensuring justice in light of the legal provisions and evidence presented during the proceedings. en-us Mon, 07 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:49:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335880 The Tribunal allowed Appeal No.1053/2009, setting aside the confiscation order due to discrepancies in stock records and evidence presented. In Appeal No.1054/2009, the penalty imposed on the Managing Director was reduced from &8377; 10,00,000 to &8377; 1,00,000, considering the proportionality principle under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment emphasized the need for penalties to align with the offense committed, ensuring justice in light of the legal provisions and evidence presented during the proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335880