https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3847 Admissions by the manager and director, supported by documentary evidence, showed that finished excisable goods were cleared without payment of duty. The out-going gate passes and duty-paid invoices did not match, including differences in dates, and the required declaration was not filed at the relevant time. As the procedural requirements under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not complied with, the claimed verification was rejected and the Tribunal's findings sustaining the duty demand were upheld. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3847 Admissions by the manager and director, supported by documentary evidence, showed that finished excisable goods were cleared without payment of duty. The out-going gate passes and duty-paid invoices did not match, including differences in dates, and the required declaration was not filed at the relevant time. As the procedural requirements under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not complied with, the claimed verification was rejected and the Tribunal's findings sustaining the duty demand were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3847