https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108493 Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied merely because finished goods were unaccounted and were presumed to have been removed without duty payment; the proviso applied only where the statutory conditions of non-levy, short-levy, short-payment or erroneous refund were actually satisfied. As the goods had not been removed and the factual basis for denial was absent, deemed credit remained admissible. For the same reason, penalty under Rule 173Q could not stand once the credit benefit itself was not lawfully denied. The Revenue's challenge failed and the penalty was deleted. en-us Thu, 08 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:21:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108493 Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied merely because finished goods were unaccounted and were presumed to have been removed without duty payment; the proviso applied only where the statutory conditions of non-levy, short-levy, short-payment or erroneous refund were actually satisfied. As the goods had not been removed and the factual basis for denial was absent, deemed credit remained admissible. For the same reason, penalty under Rule 173Q could not stand once the credit benefit itself was not lawfully denied. The Revenue's challenge failed and the penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108493