https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123662 The case involved the confiscation of seized goods and the demand of duty based on excess quantity found in a truck. Penalties were imposed on both respondents under relevant sections of the Central Excise Act and Rules. A dispute arose regarding the authenticity and ownership of a Notebook related to the clearance of goods, with allegations of clandestine removal based on its entries. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, citing insufficient corroborative evidence and unreliable entries in the Notebook, ultimately upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside duty demands and penalties. en-us Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123662 The case involved the confiscation of seized goods and the demand of duty based on excess quantity found in a truck. Penalties were imposed on both respondents under relevant sections of the Central Excise Act and Rules. A dispute arose regarding the authenticity and ownership of a Notebook related to the clearance of goods, with allegations of clandestine removal based on its entries. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, citing insufficient corroborative evidence and unreliable entries in the Notebook, ultimately upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside duty demands and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123662