https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50317 Unretracted, mutually corroborative dealer statements, supported by seized records and surrounding circumstances, were treated as sufficient to show that only duty-paying documents were traded and that the invoices did not reflect actual movement of goods; on that basis, Modvat credit was denied and the penalty on the assessee under Rule 173Q was sustained. By contrast, the personal penalties on the other two appellants under Rule 209A were set aside because the order did not record findings showing that the essential ingredients of that penal provision were satisfied. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:59:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50317 Unretracted, mutually corroborative dealer statements, supported by seized records and surrounding circumstances, were treated as sufficient to show that only duty-paying documents were traded and that the invoices did not reflect actual movement of goods; on that basis, Modvat credit was denied and the penalty on the assessee under Rule 173Q was sustained. By contrast, the personal penalties on the other two appellants under Rule 209A were set aside because the order did not record findings showing that the essential ingredients of that penal provision were satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50317