https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418920 Confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained after the rule had been omitted, because the saving provisions in Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not preserve proceedings for confiscation of land, building, plant or machinery. The substituted rule regime applied only to goods, not immovable assets or plant and machinery, so the confiscation orders were without jurisdiction. In the absence of a statutory first charge under the Central Excise Act before insertion of Section 11E, a secured creditor's rights under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 prevailed over excise dues. The secured creditor therefore had priority over the department's claim. en-us Thu, 24 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2025 14:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418920 Confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained after the rule had been omitted, because the saving provisions in Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not preserve proceedings for confiscation of land, building, plant or machinery. The substituted rule regime applied only to goods, not immovable assets or plant and machinery, so the confiscation orders were without jurisdiction. In the absence of a statutory first charge under the Central Excise Act before insertion of Section 11E, a secured creditor's rights under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 prevailed over excise dues. The secured creditor therefore had priority over the department's claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418920