https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209635 The Tribunal upheld the confiscation order and redemption fine, partially allowing the respondent's cross objection. The burden of proof was on the respondent to demonstrate the discrepancies were not intentional. The penalty reduction reasoning by the Commissioner (Appeals) was agreed upon, and the redemption fine was maintained based on potential profits from clandestine activities. The excess raw materials received without justification for the delay in recording supported the decision to uphold the confiscation order and redemption fine. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209635 The Tribunal upheld the confiscation order and redemption fine, partially allowing the respondent's cross objection. The burden of proof was on the respondent to demonstrate the discrepancies were not intentional. The penalty reduction reasoning by the Commissioner (Appeals) was agreed upon, and the redemption fine was maintained based on potential profits from clandestine activities. The excess raw materials received without justification for the delay in recording supported the decision to uphold the confiscation order and redemption fine. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209635