https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114799 Scented betel nut powder was treated as non-dutiable for the period before 16-3-1995, and valuation could permit abatement of duty under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act where supported by the relevant Larger Bench view. For the later period, a duty demand based on a mahazar, stock calculations, and allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance was rejected because the record lacked positive, corroborative evidence of raw material procurement, manufacture, and removal. As the clandestine removal charge failed, the confiscation of goods and the accompanying penalties also could not stand. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2024 15:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114799 Scented betel nut powder was treated as non-dutiable for the period before 16-3-1995, and valuation could permit abatement of duty under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act where supported by the relevant Larger Bench view. For the later period, a duty demand based on a mahazar, stock calculations, and allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance was rejected because the record lacked positive, corroborative evidence of raw material procurement, manufacture, and removal. As the clandestine removal charge failed, the confiscation of goods and the accompanying penalties also could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114799