https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204920 Clandestine removal of excisable goods was established on the basis of excess finished stock, parallel invoices, movement of goods without supporting documents, seizures at dealers' premises, and admissions by persons connected with the business; the finding was therefore sustained in favour of Revenue. The mark used on the goods was treated as a brand name and not merely a house mark, and registration of the mark was not required for excise duty liability; the goods were accordingly liable to duty as branded products in unit containers. Suppression of facts was also proved because the clearances were not recorded in the prescribed records, so the extended period of limitation remained available. en-us Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204920 Clandestine removal of excisable goods was established on the basis of excess finished stock, parallel invoices, movement of goods without supporting documents, seizures at dealers' premises, and admissions by persons connected with the business; the finding was therefore sustained in favour of Revenue. The mark used on the goods was treated as a brand name and not merely a house mark, and registration of the mark was not required for excise duty liability; the goods were accordingly liable to duty as branded products in unit containers. Suppression of facts was also proved because the clearances were not recorded in the prescribed records, so the extended period of limitation remained available. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204920