https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151872 Seized documents found in the assessee's handwriting, supported by handwriting expert opinion and unshaken by rebuttal evidence, were treated as sufficient proof of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods; the absence of further corroborative investigation did not by itself weaken that documentary evidence. The contrary view was found inconsistent with the record, including statements of dealers and other supporting material. However, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act could not be sustained for a period before that provision came into force, and was therefore unsustainable for that period. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:57:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151872 Seized documents found in the assessee's handwriting, supported by handwriting expert opinion and unshaken by rebuttal evidence, were treated as sufficient proof of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods; the absence of further corroborative investigation did not by itself weaken that documentary evidence. The contrary view was found inconsistent with the record, including statements of dealers and other supporting material. However, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act could not be sustained for a period before that provision came into force, and was therefore unsustainable for that period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151872