https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111876 Goods cleared under Chapter X re-warehousing procedure were alleged to have been substituted or diverted, but the department failed to establish the charge with reliable seizure records. The bags' marks and numbers matched the AR3A documents in the first seizure, and the only discrepancy was the vehicle number. For the remaining seizures, the panchanamas did not record the relevant marks and numbers, and no later record was prepared to prove a mismatch. On that evidence, the alleged diversion remained unproved, and the duty demand, confiscation and penalties were held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:40:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111876 Goods cleared under Chapter X re-warehousing procedure were alleged to have been substituted or diverted, but the department failed to establish the charge with reliable seizure records. The bags' marks and numbers matched the AR3A documents in the first seizure, and the only discrepancy was the vehicle number. For the remaining seizures, the panchanamas did not record the relevant marks and numbers, and no later record was prepared to prove a mismatch. On that evidence, the alleged diversion remained unproved, and the duty demand, confiscation and penalties were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111876