https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102092 Clear proof is required to sustain a charge that returned goods were not repairable and that fresh goods were cleared as repaired goods; incomplete records and inference alone were insufficient, so that allegation failed and only the duty aspect on replacement parts or Modvat reversal was remanded. The stock discrepancy issue was partly sustained: the shortage demand was accepted, excess goods were confiscated for lack of evidence supporting the explanation, and the redemption fine was reduced. Penalty on the company was confined to the sustained discrepancy, penalties on officers were set aside for want of supporting material, and the later penalty and interest provisions were held inapplicable to the earlier period. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:44:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102092 Clear proof is required to sustain a charge that returned goods were not repairable and that fresh goods were cleared as repaired goods; incomplete records and inference alone were insufficient, so that allegation failed and only the duty aspect on replacement parts or Modvat reversal was remanded. The stock discrepancy issue was partly sustained: the shortage demand was accepted, excess goods were confiscated for lack of evidence supporting the explanation, and the redemption fine was reduced. Penalty on the company was confined to the sustained discrepancy, penalties on officers were set aside for want of supporting material, and the later penalty and interest provisions were held inapplicable to the earlier period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102092