https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92673 In the absence of corroborative evidence, stock discrepancies and non-filing of D-3 intimations did not by themselves establish clandestine removal or justify confiscation. The duty demand on finished goods and excess stock was set aside because the variation was explained by timing differences in production and register entries, and the Department had not discharged the burden of proof. Confiscation of returned defective goods was also set aside where the assessee's explanation of dealer returns and scrap conversion remained unrebutted. Removal of inputs to an adjacent plot owned by the assessee was treated as a procedural lapse that did not defeat Modvat credit. Penalty was sustained for procedural non-compliance, but reduced to Rs. 50,000. en-us Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2011 12:46:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92673 In the absence of corroborative evidence, stock discrepancies and non-filing of D-3 intimations did not by themselves establish clandestine removal or justify confiscation. The duty demand on finished goods and excess stock was set aside because the variation was explained by timing differences in production and register entries, and the Department had not discharged the burden of proof. Confiscation of returned defective goods was also set aside where the assessee's explanation of dealer returns and scrap conversion remained unrebutted. Removal of inputs to an adjacent plot owned by the assessee was treated as a procedural lapse that did not defeat Modvat credit. Penalty was sustained for procedural non-compliance, but reduced to Rs. 50,000. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92673