https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762570 Returned goods that were intimated to the department, entered in statutory records, and reflected in ER-1 returns could not support a demand based on suppression or mis-declaration; Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules allowed credit treatment where such goods were re-processed and re-cleared, so the major demand and penalty were set aside. By contrast, an admitted stock shortage of finished/input goods attracted duty, interest, and equal penalty where the short levy was accepted and the duty had not been disputed as paid, so the smaller demand was confirmed. The text thus distinguishes between unsubstantiated suppression-based allegations and an admitted shortfall on stock verification. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762570 Returned goods that were intimated to the department, entered in statutory records, and reflected in ER-1 returns could not support a demand based on suppression or mis-declaration; Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules allowed credit treatment where such goods were re-processed and re-cleared, so the major demand and penalty were set aside. By contrast, an admitted stock shortage of finished/input goods attracted duty, interest, and equal penalty where the short levy was accepted and the duty had not been disputed as paid, so the smaller demand was confirmed. The text thus distinguishes between unsubstantiated suppression-based allegations and an admitted shortfall on stock verification. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762570