https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249577 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the appellant's method of accounting for rejected goods in the RG-1 register complied with Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not suppressed any information or mis-declared goods, leading to the conclusion that penalties were unwarranted. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that duty cannot be demanded twice on the same goods without evidence of non-payment previously. The appeal was allowed due to the lack of justification for the demand and penalties. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 15:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249577 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the appellant's method of accounting for rejected goods in the RG-1 register complied with Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not suppressed any information or mis-declared goods, leading to the conclusion that penalties were unwarranted. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that duty cannot be demanded twice on the same goods without evidence of non-payment previously. The appeal was allowed due to the lack of justification for the demand and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249577