https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283895 Confiscation and penalties were upheld as set aside because the department failed to prove any contravention under the excise rules. The record showed no reliable evidence of clandestine removal or clandestine manufacture, no clear demand or adjudication of duty, and no proof that the seized goods were removed without payment of duty. The defence evidence was not properly appreciated, and the seizure materials were improperly clubbed together. The matter also did not justify remand for fresh adjudication, and a combined fine could not be sustained merely because the persons belonged to one family unit, especially where part of the goods related to a partnership firm. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Oct 2019 18:40:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283895 Confiscation and penalties were upheld as set aside because the department failed to prove any contravention under the excise rules. The record showed no reliable evidence of clandestine removal or clandestine manufacture, no clear demand or adjudication of duty, and no proof that the seized goods were removed without payment of duty. The defence evidence was not properly appreciated, and the seizure materials were improperly clubbed together. The matter also did not justify remand for fresh adjudication, and a combined fine could not be sustained merely because the persons belonged to one family unit, especially where part of the goods related to a partnership firm. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283895