https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102644 Unaccounted electrolytic capacitors, admitted in the noticee's statement and not reflected in excise records, were treated as intended for clandestine removal, and that finding was sustained. Denial of small scale exemption was also upheld because the appellants were found to be using another person's brand name, with no infirmity in the adjudication. The allegation of wrongful availment of Modvat credit was maintained on the basis of the record and the earlier findings. In light of these violations, the penalty was held to be neither excessive nor unwarranted, and the appeals failed on merits. en-us Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:09:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102644 Unaccounted electrolytic capacitors, admitted in the noticee's statement and not reflected in excise records, were treated as intended for clandestine removal, and that finding was sustained. Denial of small scale exemption was also upheld because the appellants were found to be using another person's brand name, with no infirmity in the adjudication. The allegation of wrongful availment of Modvat credit was maintained on the basis of the record and the earlier findings. In light of these violations, the penalty was held to be neither excessive nor unwarranted, and the appeals failed on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102644