https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114518 Mere excess finished stock found during a factory visit did not justify confiscation where the unit was in continuous production and the statutory records had been updated only up to the previous day. The contemporaneous RG-1 and RG 23A Part I entries supported the explanation that the apparent variation reflected ongoing manufacture rather than suppression or clandestine removal. On those facts, the allegation of unauthorised removal was not established, and confiscation was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 May 2012 13:24:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114518 Mere excess finished stock found during a factory visit did not justify confiscation where the unit was in continuous production and the statutory records had been updated only up to the previous day. The contemporaneous RG-1 and RG 23A Part I entries supported the explanation that the apparent variation reflected ongoing manufacture rather than suppression or clandestine removal. On those facts, the allegation of unauthorised removal was not established, and confiscation was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114518