https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54265 Admitted clandestine removal of excisable goods was upheld on the basis of un-retracted statements and surrounding circumstances, despite the absence of buyers' particulars or further corroboration. The duty demand was required to be re-quantified on a cum-duty basis because sale proceeds had to be treated as inclusive of duty. Penalty under Rule 173Q(1) read with Section 11AC remained sustainable even though duty was paid after detection, though the penalty amount was reduced. Confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery was not sustained and was set aside. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:18:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54265 Admitted clandestine removal of excisable goods was upheld on the basis of un-retracted statements and surrounding circumstances, despite the absence of buyers' particulars or further corroboration. The duty demand was required to be re-quantified on a cum-duty basis because sale proceeds had to be treated as inclusive of duty. Penalty under Rule 173Q(1) read with Section 11AC remained sustainable even though duty was paid after detection, though the penalty amount was reduced. Confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery was not sustained and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54265