https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170531 Contemporaneous inward records, supplier confirmations, and admissions by the authorised signatory and director were treated as sufficient evidence of receipt of polyester texturised yarn, non-accountal in excise records, manufacture, and clearance without duty. The explanation of work-in-progress was rejected because it was unsupported by stock-taking records or the panchnama. On that basis, the demand of central excise duty for clandestine removal was sustained. Once suppression and clandestine clearance were established, the related penal consequences under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, including penalties and confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery, were treated as justified. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 May 2015 18:18:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170531 Contemporaneous inward records, supplier confirmations, and admissions by the authorised signatory and director were treated as sufficient evidence of receipt of polyester texturised yarn, non-accountal in excise records, manufacture, and clearance without duty. The explanation of work-in-progress was rejected because it was unsupported by stock-taking records or the panchnama. On that basis, the demand of central excise duty for clandestine removal was sustained. Once suppression and clandestine clearance were established, the related penal consequences under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, including penalties and confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery, were treated as justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170531