https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123860 Goods lying within the factory premises could not be confiscated merely because they were not entered in RG 1, since there was no evidence of attempted unauthorised removal and confiscation under Rule 173Q was therefore unsustainable. The demand for duty on alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of sheets also failed because such allegations require positive corroborative evidence, and suspicion alone cannot sustain liability under Rule 9(2) and Section 11A. The Revenue having failed to prove either clandestine removal or confiscation liability, the assessee succeeded. en-us Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123860 Goods lying within the factory premises could not be confiscated merely because they were not entered in RG 1, since there was no evidence of attempted unauthorised removal and confiscation under Rule 173Q was therefore unsustainable. The demand for duty on alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of sheets also failed because such allegations require positive corroborative evidence, and suspicion alone cannot sustain liability under Rule 9(2) and Section 11A. The Revenue having failed to prove either clandestine removal or confiscation liability, the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123860