Stock-shortage demands remain sustainable when record evidence supports the shortage, despite dispute over eye-estimate quantification.

Stock-shortage demands are sustainable where the record supports the shortage and the violation is otherwise established, even if the assessee disputes the verification method as an eye estimate. The challenge that the duty demand and penalties were not based on exact scientific quantification did not, by itself, defeat the demand when the underlying material substantiated the shortage. The duty appropriation and connected penalties were therefore upheld, and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalties arising from shortage of stock, as ascertained at the time of verification, were liable to be set aside for want of exact quantification.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the appropriated duty amount and the penalties imposed on the basis that the shortage had been worked out by eye estimate and not by a scientific method. The Tribunal noted the reliance placed on precedent requiring proper quantification in stock shortage matters, but found the governing principle to be that where the material on record supports the shortage and the legal basis for demand is otherwise established, mere objection to the mode of stock verification does not ipso facto defeat the demand.

Conclusion: The demand and connected penalties were upheld, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order sustained the duty appropriation and penalties on shortage of stock, resulting in dismissal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A stock-shortage demand is sustainable where the record supports the shortage and the evidence establishes the violation, even if the assessee disputes the quantification methodology as an eye estimate.

---