https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352270 The Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner as the Revenue failed to prove clandestine stocking of finished goods without duty payment. It was established that the seized goods were work-in-progress, not final products, based on the Director's statement and lack of evidence from the Revenue. The confiscation and penalty were deemed unjustified and unfit due to presumptive claims and lack of substantiated evidence. The demand for the differential duty and penalty was also invalidated as the appellant had rectified the duty shortfall voluntarily before the notice was issued. The appellant's appeal was allowed, granting them consequential benefits. en-us Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:49:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352270 The Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner as the Revenue failed to prove clandestine stocking of finished goods without duty payment. It was established that the seized goods were work-in-progress, not final products, based on the Director's statement and lack of evidence from the Revenue. The confiscation and penalty were deemed unjustified and unfit due to presumptive claims and lack of substantiated evidence. The demand for the differential duty and penalty was also invalidated as the appellant had rectified the duty shortfall voluntarily before the notice was issued. The appellant's appeal was allowed, granting them consequential benefits. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352270