https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33474 Concurrent factual findings that the disputed yarn was separately stacked, the anti-static oil was not proved to be excess stock, and the omission was only a technical default in maintaining statutory records justified setting aside confiscation and reducing the penalty. The Gujarat HC found no legal infirmity in those concurrent findings and held that the controversy did not disclose clandestine removal or any substantial question of law. Interference was therefore declined, and the characterisation of the lapse as technical rather than deliberate was upheld. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 17 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33474 Concurrent factual findings that the disputed yarn was separately stacked, the anti-static oil was not proved to be excess stock, and the omission was only a technical default in maintaining statutory records justified setting aside confiscation and reducing the penalty. The Gujarat HC found no legal infirmity in those concurrent findings and held that the controversy did not disclose clandestine removal or any substantial question of law. Interference was therefore declined, and the characterisation of the lapse as technical rather than deliberate was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33474