https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109092 Confiscation of excess and unlabelled biris was upheld because the goods were found beyond the recorded stock and the explanations offered were unsupported by contemporaneous records. The duty demand based on private records was set aside, as one record maker was not examined and no independent corroboration or verification established clandestine removal; the assessee received the benefit of doubt. Penalty on the proprietary firm was reduced in light of the partial proof and failure of the demand, while the separate penalty on the proprietor was set aside because the firm was proprietary in nature. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:01:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109092 Confiscation of excess and unlabelled biris was upheld because the goods were found beyond the recorded stock and the explanations offered were unsupported by contemporaneous records. The duty demand based on private records was set aside, as one record maker was not examined and no independent corroboration or verification established clandestine removal; the assessee received the benefit of doubt. Penalty on the proprietary firm was reduced in light of the partial proof and failure of the demand, while the separate penalty on the proprietor was set aside because the firm was proprietary in nature. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109092