https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76465 Rule 52A could not be invoked to sustain excise demand, penalty, interest, or Modvat credit reversal where the pattern tools were shown only by invoice and not by actual physical removal or delivery. The record did not establish any movement of the goods to the buyer, and the notice proceeded without proof of statutory removal. As removal under the rule required physical delivery accompanied by invoice, deemed removal could not be presumed. On that basis, the proceedings founded on alleged sale or removal were unsustainable and the connected liabilities failed. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76465 Rule 52A could not be invoked to sustain excise demand, penalty, interest, or Modvat credit reversal where the pattern tools were shown only by invoice and not by actual physical removal or delivery. The record did not establish any movement of the goods to the buyer, and the notice proceeded without proof of statutory removal. As removal under the rule required physical delivery accompanied by invoice, deemed removal could not be presumed. On that basis, the proceedings founded on alleged sale or removal were unsustainable and the connected liabilities failed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76465