https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308935 Penalty under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, now Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, was questioned on the basis that the show cause notice did not allege confiscation of goods. The Bombay High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law and deferred consideration of interim relief. The document highlights the legal issue of whether a penalty can be sustained in the absence of an allegation of confiscation in the notice, without stating any final determination on merits. en-us Wed, 09 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2023 14:14:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308935 Penalty under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, now Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, was questioned on the basis that the show cause notice did not allege confiscation of goods. The Bombay High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law and deferred consideration of interim relief. The document highlights the legal issue of whether a penalty can be sustained in the absence of an allegation of confiscation in the notice, without stating any final determination on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308935