https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46402 Rule 151(d) of the Central Excise Rules was construed to cover private removal or concealment of goods both before and after warehousing, so the reference to goods "warehoused" did not limit liability to goods not yet warehoused. On the facts, the excise authorities had concurrently found that duty-paid tobacco had been substituted with non-duty tobacco, and that factual finding was supported by evidence. The High Court held that, absent jurisdictional error, procedural illegality, or absence of evidence, it would not reappraise the record in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The demand of duty and penalty was therefore sustained. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:54:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46402 Rule 151(d) of the Central Excise Rules was construed to cover private removal or concealment of goods both before and after warehousing, so the reference to goods "warehoused" did not limit liability to goods not yet warehoused. On the facts, the excise authorities had concurrently found that duty-paid tobacco had been substituted with non-duty tobacco, and that factual finding was supported by evidence. The High Court held that, absent jurisdictional error, procedural illegality, or absence of evidence, it would not reappraise the record in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The demand of duty and penalty was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46402