https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117509 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order-in-appeal. It determined that the seized goods were duty discharged and not subject to confiscation. The Tribunal found the shortage of finished goods allegation unsubstantiated due to reliance on eye estimation without corroborative evidence, acknowledging potential errors in stock verification methods. en-us Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117509 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order-in-appeal. It determined that the seized goods were duty discharged and not subject to confiscation. The Tribunal found the shortage of finished goods allegation unsubstantiated due to reliance on eye estimation without corroborative evidence, acknowledging potential errors in stock verification methods. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117509