https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52647 Duty demand based on stock discrepancy was sustained only to the extent supported by verification of records relating to movement of goods to job workers. Confiscation was upheld because the assessee failed to maintain proper RG-1 accounting and did not establish that the excess stock was supported by collateral records. Redemption fine and penalty were also justified on the finding of non-accountal, but their quantum was held excessive and was reduced. The appeal was therefore partly allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 10:18:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52647 Duty demand based on stock discrepancy was sustained only to the extent supported by verification of records relating to movement of goods to job workers. Confiscation was upheld because the assessee failed to maintain proper RG-1 accounting and did not establish that the excess stock was supported by collateral records. Redemption fine and penalty were also justified on the finding of non-accountal, but their quantum was held excessive and was reduced. The appeal was therefore partly allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52647