https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153655 Mere non-accountal of finished goods in RG-1 does not, by itself, justify confiscation or penalty where the assessee produces credible documentary evidence explaining the stock. Here, MS ingots were shown to have been earlier cleared on duty, returned by the customer under excise invoices, and taken back under Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, with the seized quantity forming part of returned, unutilised stock. In the absence of independent evidence of clandestine removal, the initial statement of the authorised signatory was insufficient to sustain the allegation. The confiscation and penalties were therefore not sustainable, and the appeals succeeded. en-us Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153655 Mere non-accountal of finished goods in RG-1 does not, by itself, justify confiscation or penalty where the assessee produces credible documentary evidence explaining the stock. Here, MS ingots were shown to have been earlier cleared on duty, returned by the customer under excise invoices, and taken back under Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, with the seized quantity forming part of returned, unutilised stock. In the absence of independent evidence of clandestine removal, the initial statement of the authorised signatory was insufficient to sustain the allegation. The confiscation and penalties were therefore not sustainable, and the appeals succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153655