https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116579 Alleged duty demand based on supposed shortage of decorated bottles failed because the record did not support physical verification or any proof of clandestine removal, and the clearances were already reflected in duty-paid accounts. Confiscation of decorated, reannealed and unprinted bottles also failed because their receipt, return and processing were accounted for under the duty-paid procedure, with no evidence of evasion after reannealing. Denial of Modvat credit was not justified where unprinted glass bottles were received under duty-paid invoices as inputs, and the penalty could not survive once the demand and confiscation were unsustainable. en-us Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:24:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116579 Alleged duty demand based on supposed shortage of decorated bottles failed because the record did not support physical verification or any proof of clandestine removal, and the clearances were already reflected in duty-paid accounts. Confiscation of decorated, reannealed and unprinted bottles also failed because their receipt, return and processing were accounted for under the duty-paid procedure, with no evidence of evasion after reannealing. Denial of Modvat credit was not justified where unprinted glass bottles were received under duty-paid invoices as inputs, and the penalty could not survive once the demand and confiscation were unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116579