https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50926 Confiscation of excess finished goods was held unwarranted where the excess arose from incomplete record maintenance and there was no evidence of intended illicit clearance; only a token penalty for the procedural lapse was sustained. A duty demand based solely on an inferred input-output ratio and alleged clandestine manufacture or removal was also rejected because the period concerned was the assessee's initial working period and no direct proof of suppression was produced. The substantive duty demand and consequential penalty were set aside, leaving only the limited penalty for defective record-keeping. en-us Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:17:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50926 Confiscation of excess finished goods was held unwarranted where the excess arose from incomplete record maintenance and there was no evidence of intended illicit clearance; only a token penalty for the procedural lapse was sustained. A duty demand based solely on an inferred input-output ratio and alleged clandestine manufacture or removal was also rejected because the period concerned was the assessee's initial working period and no direct proof of suppression was produced. The substantive duty demand and consequential penalty were set aside, leaving only the limited penalty for defective record-keeping. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50926