https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166905 In excise proceedings under the self-removal regime, limitation was computed by excluding the date of receipt of the order, so the appeal was treated as within time. The manufacturer's failure to make proper RG-1 entries and to satisfactorily account for paper shown in private records justified confirmation of duty demand. Relief on the basis that the goods were defective and intended for re-pulping was denied because the prescribed conditions were not met and the necessary records and approach to the authorities were absent. Penalty, however, was held not warranted on the facts and was set aside. en-us Wed, 29 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:11:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166905 In excise proceedings under the self-removal regime, limitation was computed by excluding the date of receipt of the order, so the appeal was treated as within time. The manufacturer's failure to make proper RG-1 entries and to satisfactorily account for paper shown in private records justified confirmation of duty demand. Relief on the basis that the goods were defective and intended for re-pulping was denied because the prescribed conditions were not met and the necessary records and approach to the authorities were absent. Penalty, however, was held not warranted on the facts and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166905