https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3292 A shortage of finished goods accepted during stock verification can sustain a duty demand where the later explanation is unverified and unsupported at the time of inspection. The appellant's claim that the goods were in the finishing room and later cleared on duty payment was not accepted, so the duty liability was upheld. Penalty under Section 11AC was held unwarranted because the demand was founded on the appellant's own statutory records rather than extraneous material, but penalty under Rule 173Q remained sustainable for contravention of the rules and was reduced to Rs. 20,000 in the facts. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3292 A shortage of finished goods accepted during stock verification can sustain a duty demand where the later explanation is unverified and unsupported at the time of inspection. The appellant's claim that the goods were in the finishing room and later cleared on duty payment was not accepted, so the duty liability was upheld. Penalty under Section 11AC was held unwarranted because the demand was founded on the appellant's own statutory records rather than extraneous material, but penalty under Rule 173Q remained sustainable for contravention of the rules and was reduced to Rs. 20,000 in the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3292