https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33511 Duty for February and March 2000 could not be sustained on mere presumption that the stenter machine seal had been broken before 4-4-2000, because the seal was found intact on 7-2-2000 and no independent evidence showed an earlier breach. The demand for those months was therefore set aside. On penalties, a reduced penalty was justified against the processing unit for opening the seal without intimation, but the separate penalty on the partner was not warranted on the recorded facts. Penalties on the buyers were also unsustainable because there was no evidence of their knowledge of, or participation in, the breach, and they were not required to verify duty payment particulars for each consignment under the compounded levy scheme. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33511 Duty for February and March 2000 could not be sustained on mere presumption that the stenter machine seal had been broken before 4-4-2000, because the seal was found intact on 7-2-2000 and no independent evidence showed an earlier breach. The demand for those months was therefore set aside. On penalties, a reduced penalty was justified against the processing unit for opening the seal without intimation, but the separate penalty on the partner was not warranted on the recorded facts. Penalties on the buyers were also unsustainable because there was no evidence of their knowledge of, or participation in, the breach, and they were not required to verify duty payment particulars for each consignment under the compounded levy scheme. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33511