https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80439 Physical verification showing shortage and excess of excisable goods, coupled with signed stock records and no contemporaneous protest, supported an inference of unaccounted removal and improper accounting under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The manufacturer's explanation of heavy stock, market recession and human error was not substantiated by evidence sufficient to displace the verified discrepancies. Strict compliance with statutory entry and storage requirements was required, and the breach was treated as more than a technical lapse. Duty demand, confiscation-related consequences and penalties were upheld. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:08:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80439 Physical verification showing shortage and excess of excisable goods, coupled with signed stock records and no contemporaneous protest, supported an inference of unaccounted removal and improper accounting under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The manufacturer's explanation of heavy stock, market recession and human error was not substantiated by evidence sufficient to displace the verified discrepancies. Strict compliance with statutory entry and storage requirements was required, and the breach was treated as more than a technical lapse. Duty demand, confiscation-related consequences and penalties were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80439