https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210254 Excess excisable goods found during stock verification, coupled with an unretracted admission by the authorised signatory under Section 14, was treated as sufficient to establish irregular stock maintenance. The verification was not rejected merely because it used the dip reading method, since the assessee itself maintained stock on the same basis. On those facts, the conditions for confiscation and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) were held satisfied, and the redemption fine and penalties were found reasonable in light of the value of the excess goods. The confiscation and penalties were upheld. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2012 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210254 Excess excisable goods found during stock verification, coupled with an unretracted admission by the authorised signatory under Section 14, was treated as sufficient to establish irregular stock maintenance. The verification was not rejected merely because it used the dip reading method, since the assessee itself maintained stock on the same basis. On those facts, the conditions for confiscation and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) were held satisfied, and the redemption fine and penalties were found reasonable in light of the value of the excess goods. The confiscation and penalties were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210254