Stock discrepancy explanations rejected where register entries failed to match verified balance and post-seizure recovery was unconvincing.

Explanations for discrepancies in raw material stock and accounts were rejected because the unit's own register did not match the verified balance, and the plea of non-maintenance of accounts was insufficient. The claim that excess stearic acid resulted from moisture absorption was found implausible, while the shortage of liquid paraffin was treated as unsubstantiated and the later recovery was not accepted because it was raised only after seizure. The argument based on the unit's reputation was held irrelevant, and the Assistant Collector's order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the explanations offered for the excess and shortage of raw materials, including the plea of absence of the dealing clerk, alleged moisture absorption in stearic acid, and subsequent recovery of liquid paraffin, warranted interference with the order of the Assistant Collector.

Analysis: The explanation for non-maintenance of accounts was found insufficient. The recorded stock balance on the basis of the unit's own register did not tally with the verified balance. The plea that stearic acid showed excess due to absorption of moisture was rejected as implausible. The explanation for the shortage of liquid paraffin was treated as unsubstantiated, and the later recovery was not accepted as it was raised only after seizure. The claim that the unit's reputation excluded any malpractice was treated as irrelevant.

Conclusion: The explanations were rejected and the order of the Assistant Collector was upheld.

---