https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52317 Excisable goods removed from a factory without invoice and without payment of duty remained liable to duty demand and confiscation, and stock verification supported by an acknowledged panchnama could be relied on. Shortage of inputs could be used to infer clandestine manufacture, although excess ribbed bars explained as part of CTD bars and the truck confiscation were not sustained. Corresponding Modvat credit on inputs could not be denied where duty was already demanded on the finished goods. Penalties under later-enacted Sections 11AC and 11AB were inapplicable retrospectively, and Rule 209A liability required proof of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:31:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52317 Excisable goods removed from a factory without invoice and without payment of duty remained liable to duty demand and confiscation, and stock verification supported by an acknowledged panchnama could be relied on. Shortage of inputs could be used to infer clandestine manufacture, although excess ribbed bars explained as part of CTD bars and the truck confiscation were not sustained. Corresponding Modvat credit on inputs could not be denied where duty was already demanded on the finished goods. Penalties under later-enacted Sections 11AC and 11AB were inapplicable retrospectively, and Rule 209A liability required proof of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52317