https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351286 Penalties on co-appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were unsustainable because no confiscation was proposed or upheld in relation to the pattern and dies, and the transaction was covered by Notification No. 67/1995-C.E.; the penal basis therefore failed and the penalties were set aside. The duty demand on the main appellant, said to arise from double recovery of amortised cost of pattern and dies from buyers, turned on verification of invoices and records; as the factual material required examination, the demand was set aside for the present and remanded for fresh decision after verification. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:47:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351286 Penalties on co-appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were unsustainable because no confiscation was proposed or upheld in relation to the pattern and dies, and the transaction was covered by Notification No. 67/1995-C.E.; the penal basis therefore failed and the penalties were set aside. The duty demand on the main appellant, said to arise from double recovery of amortised cost of pattern and dies from buyers, turned on verification of invoices and records; as the factual material required examination, the demand was set aside for the present and remanded for fresh decision after verification. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351286