https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110667 A clear, unretracted admission by a firm's partner regarding shortage of excisable inputs was treated as substantive evidence supporting duty demand and penalty. The later letter was not a valid retraction because it did not allege coercion, threat, or factual error, and the firm remained bound by the partner's statement. On that basis, the shortage and the consequent reversal of Modvat credit were upheld; the absence of an independent witness or a separate panchnama did not undermine the finding. The cited precedents were distinguished on their facts, and the duty liability and penalty were sustained. en-us Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:07:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110667 A clear, unretracted admission by a firm's partner regarding shortage of excisable inputs was treated as substantive evidence supporting duty demand and penalty. The later letter was not a valid retraction because it did not allege coercion, threat, or factual error, and the firm remained bound by the partner's statement. On that basis, the shortage and the consequent reversal of Modvat credit were upheld; the absence of an independent witness or a separate panchnama did not undermine the finding. The cited precedents were distinguished on their facts, and the duty liability and penalty were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110667