https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54249 Penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held unsustainable against a partnership firm and its partner for alleged use of forged duty-paying gate passes. The Tribunal found no analogous provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the rules authorising the penalty on the facts alleged, and held that even if fraudulent documents and resulting Modvat credit were established, that did not by itself justify Rule 209A penalties. It also rejected reliance on confiscation of plant and machinery under Rule 173Q(2), as plant and machinery are not excisable goods and Rule 209A applies only to persons dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:42:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54249 Penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held unsustainable against a partnership firm and its partner for alleged use of forged duty-paying gate passes. The Tribunal found no analogous provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the rules authorising the penalty on the facts alleged, and held that even if fraudulent documents and resulting Modvat credit were established, that did not by itself justify Rule 209A penalties. It also rejected reliance on confiscation of plant and machinery under Rule 173Q(2), as plant and machinery are not excisable goods and Rule 209A applies only to persons dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54249