https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82930 Excise exemption was denied where the claimant failed to maintain reliable contemporaneous records and could not prove actual use of non-duty-paid goods for the intended purpose. The Calcutta Collectorate's jurisdiction was upheld because the goods were received, accounted for, and cleared through the recipient factory within that jurisdiction. Incomplete D-3 declarations, stock discrepancies, and inconsistent records justified an inference of clandestine removal, shifting the burden back to the claimant and defeating the exemption claim. On those findings, the extended limitation period applied, so the duty demand was not time-barred. The demand and penalty were therefore sustained. en-us Mon, 30 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:25:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82930 Excise exemption was denied where the claimant failed to maintain reliable contemporaneous records and could not prove actual use of non-duty-paid goods for the intended purpose. The Calcutta Collectorate's jurisdiction was upheld because the goods were received, accounted for, and cleared through the recipient factory within that jurisdiction. Incomplete D-3 declarations, stock discrepancies, and inconsistent records justified an inference of clandestine removal, shifting the burden back to the claimant and defeating the exemption claim. On those findings, the extended limitation period applied, so the duty demand was not time-barred. The demand and penalty were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82930