https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351579 For a single excise contravention, overlapping penalties should not be imposed under multiple provisions, and only the principal penalty was retained while the additional penalties were set aside. Redemption fine requires goods capable of confiscation; because no goods were seized or available for confiscation, the fine was unsustainable and was deleted. The partner's penalty was found excessive on the facts and was reduced, reflecting the overall penal consequences already faced by the firm. en-us Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:38:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351579 For a single excise contravention, overlapping penalties should not be imposed under multiple provisions, and only the principal penalty was retained while the additional penalties were set aside. Redemption fine requires goods capable of confiscation; because no goods were seized or available for confiscation, the fine was unsustainable and was deleted. The partner's penalty was found excessive on the facts and was reduced, reflecting the overall penal consequences already faced by the firm. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351579