https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266566 Clandestine removal of S.O. Dyes was alleged because goods were entered in the Blender Register but not in RG-1. The Tribunal's analysis treated RG-1 liability as arising only when the goods had reached the stage of fully finished, standardised and marketable excisable goods, and accepted that batches awaiting customer approval or standardisation in loose bags did not automatically require RG-1 entry. It also noted that the Technical Director's statements were not inculpatory and that no independent evidence supported the allegation beyond internal records. On that reasoning, the duty demand could not survive and the penalties also fell once the demand was rejected on merits. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266566 Clandestine removal of S.O. Dyes was alleged because goods were entered in the Blender Register but not in RG-1. The Tribunal's analysis treated RG-1 liability as arising only when the goods had reached the stage of fully finished, standardised and marketable excisable goods, and accepted that batches awaiting customer approval or standardisation in loose bags did not automatically require RG-1 entry. It also noted that the Technical Director's statements were not inculpatory and that no independent evidence supported the allegation beyond internal records. On that reasoning, the duty demand could not survive and the penalties also fell once the demand was rejected on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266566