https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218245 Unclear departmental guidance on the stage at which transformers had to be entered in RG-1 meant that mere non-entry of semi-finished goods did not, by itself, justify confiscation as unaccounted excisable goods. By contrast, shortage of accounted finished transformers at stock verification supported an inference of evasion and removal without duty, sustaining duty demand and penalty on that count. The stated ratio is that prolonged uncertainty over accounting requirements weakens confiscation for semi-finished goods, but absence of finished goods from stock can establish clandestine removal. en-us Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218245 Unclear departmental guidance on the stage at which transformers had to be entered in RG-1 meant that mere non-entry of semi-finished goods did not, by itself, justify confiscation as unaccounted excisable goods. By contrast, shortage of accounted finished transformers at stock verification supported an inference of evasion and removal without duty, sustaining duty demand and penalty on that count. The stated ratio is that prolonged uncertainty over accounting requirements weakens confiscation for semi-finished goods, but absence of finished goods from stock can establish clandestine removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218245