https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380926 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the goods were not entirely excisable due to being semi-finished and not marketable. It found no mala fide intention in the removal of goods without duty payment, emphasizing the lack of evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal highlighted that penalties could not be imposed solely for procedural lapses and that the inordinate delay in adjudication did not invalidate the demand. Both appeals were allowed, with the Tribunal emphasizing that the procedural lapse did not warrant confiscation or penalties, granting consequential benefits as per law. en-us Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2019 07:53:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380926 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the goods were not entirely excisable due to being semi-finished and not marketable. It found no mala fide intention in the removal of goods without duty payment, emphasizing the lack of evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal highlighted that penalties could not be imposed solely for procedural lapses and that the inordinate delay in adjudication did not invalidate the demand. Both appeals were allowed, with the Tribunal emphasizing that the procedural lapse did not warrant confiscation or penalties, granting consequential benefits as per law. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380926