https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82507 Seized records can support a finding of clandestine removal even where a witness statement is disowned, but the Department must still prove duty liability for goods claimed to be exempt in the relevant period. Confiscation of the seized biris was upheld because the assessee failed to prove duty payment, while the duty demand was partly sustained on the quantity supported by documentary evidence and partly set aside for unbranded biris cleared before Notification No. 32/79-C.E. The modest penalty was maintained because clandestine removal was proved for the balance quantity. en-us Wed, 03 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:53:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82507 Seized records can support a finding of clandestine removal even where a witness statement is disowned, but the Department must still prove duty liability for goods claimed to be exempt in the relevant period. Confiscation of the seized biris was upheld because the assessee failed to prove duty payment, while the duty demand was partly sustained on the quantity supported by documentary evidence and partly set aside for unbranded biris cleared before Notification No. 32/79-C.E. The modest penalty was maintained because clandestine removal was proved for the balance quantity. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82507