https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349052 Retraction of incriminating statements did not displace evidence of clandestine clearances because it was not promptly disclosed and lacked sufficient credibility. Duty liability remained where the appellants failed to correlate their cleared goods with goods allegedly duty-paid by PEPL, defeating the double-duty plea. Belated reversal of input credit after detection did not extinguish liability arising from wrongful availment and clearance. Transformers cleared without duty were liable to confiscation, making redemption fine appropriate. Violations of Central Excise law and rules also warranted penalties on the appellant and individual noticees. en-us Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Nov 2017 09:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349052 Retraction of incriminating statements did not displace evidence of clandestine clearances because it was not promptly disclosed and lacked sufficient credibility. Duty liability remained where the appellants failed to correlate their cleared goods with goods allegedly duty-paid by PEPL, defeating the double-duty plea. Belated reversal of input credit after detection did not extinguish liability arising from wrongful availment and clearance. Transformers cleared without duty were liable to confiscation, making redemption fine appropriate. Violations of Central Excise law and rules also warranted penalties on the appellant and individual noticees. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349052