https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167367 Confiscation, duty demand and penalties were supported where seized biris, contemporaneous and inculpatory statements, and corroborating evidence showed manufacture and clearance without accounting or duty payment. A belated retraction, unsupported by material, was insufficient to displace the statements, and an irregularity in search or seizure did not by itself invalidate recovery. The objection to quantity computation was rejected because the account books disclosed the basis used by the appellant. Penalties were reduced on leniency, but the demand and liability were upheld. Appropriation of the security amount under a bond for provisional release was treated as administrative enforcement rather than a quasi-judicial adjudication, so no appeal lay on that aspect. en-us Thu, 28 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:22:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167367 Confiscation, duty demand and penalties were supported where seized biris, contemporaneous and inculpatory statements, and corroborating evidence showed manufacture and clearance without accounting or duty payment. A belated retraction, unsupported by material, was insufficient to displace the statements, and an irregularity in search or seizure did not by itself invalidate recovery. The objection to quantity computation was rejected because the account books disclosed the basis used by the appellant. Penalties were reduced on leniency, but the demand and liability were upheld. Appropriation of the security amount under a bond for provisional release was treated as administrative enforcement rather than a quasi-judicial adjudication, so no appeal lay on that aspect. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167367