https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52878 The appeal succeeded as the appellants, being users and not manufacturers, were not subject to confiscation under Rule 25(1) for non-accountal of excisable goods. The Commissioner's order lacked clarity on the specific clause justifying confiscation, and despite proper accountal, the order for confiscation was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, granting consequential reliefs in accordance with the law. en-us Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52878 The appeal succeeded as the appellants, being users and not manufacturers, were not subject to confiscation under Rule 25(1) for non-accountal of excisable goods. The Commissioner's order lacked clarity on the specific clause justifying confiscation, and despite proper accountal, the order for confiscation was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, granting consequential reliefs in accordance with the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52878