https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72392 Duty under the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained on mere short-accountal of kraft paper or on a presumption that corrugated board must have been manufactured and removed. The demand failed because the notice alleged only raw-material shortage, not clandestine manufacture or removal, and the Department produced no evidence of actual unaccounted clearance. Rule 9(2) required proof of removal in contravention, while best-judgment assessment under Rule 173E was not invoked. Penalty also failed because there was no specific notice for penalty and no proof of deliberate evasion or surreptitious removal. en-us Tue, 22 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 11:37:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72392 Duty under the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained on mere short-accountal of kraft paper or on a presumption that corrugated board must have been manufactured and removed. The demand failed because the notice alleged only raw-material shortage, not clandestine manufacture or removal, and the Department produced no evidence of actual unaccounted clearance. Rule 9(2) required proof of removal in contravention, while best-judgment assessment under Rule 173E was not invoked. Penalty also failed because there was no specific notice for penalty and no proof of deliberate evasion or surreptitious removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72392