Excess stock findings must rest on actual verification, not notional weight assumptions, before confiscation or penalty can stand.

Excess excisable stock cannot be sustained where the quantity is computed on a purely notional average weight rather than by actual weighment or another reliable verification method. A stock discrepancy based only on an untested assumption is unsafe as a foundation for confiscation or penalty, especially where the goods can be weighed directly and the assessee promptly disputes the assumption with an alternative weight range. The legal point is that stock liability in excise matters must rest on dependable factual verification, not conjecture.

---

---

Issues: Whether an adjudication finding excess stock could be sustained when the quantity was arrived at only on a notional average weight per ingot, without actual weighment or a reliable method of verification.

Analysis: The stock difference was computed by assuming an average weight of 95 kg. per ingot on the basis of a statement, rather than by weighing the goods or adopting any verifiable method. The record also showed that the assessee promptly disputed that assumption and explained that the ingots were of a different weight range. A determination of quantity in stock that is purely notional and unsupported by proper verification cannot form a safe basis for confiscation or penalty, particularly where the goods are capable of being weighed directly.

Conclusion: The finding of excess stock was unreliable and could not be upheld; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decision turns on the principle that stock liability in excise matters must rest on dependable factual verification and not on an untested assumption of weight.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of excess excisable stock cannot be sustained where the quantity is computed on a purely notional basis without actual weighment or other reliable verification.

---