https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82296 Duty demand, penalty and confiscation based mainly on sulphur consumption could not be sustained where the record lacked corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal. The Tribunal noted that the lower authority had not examined total raw material consumption, feasible production, excess unaccounted purchases, worker statements, or evidence of undisclosed dispatches and buyers. It also accepted that the proprietor had corrected the sulphur ratio statement and found no inquiry into the appellant's explanation on sulphur usage. On that material, the finding of clandestine activity was held unsustainable, and fresh adjudication was required. en-us Tue, 16 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:01:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82296 Duty demand, penalty and confiscation based mainly on sulphur consumption could not be sustained where the record lacked corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal. The Tribunal noted that the lower authority had not examined total raw material consumption, feasible production, excess unaccounted purchases, worker statements, or evidence of undisclosed dispatches and buyers. It also accepted that the proprietor had corrected the sulphur ratio statement and found no inquiry into the appellant's explanation on sulphur usage. On that material, the finding of clandestine activity was held unsustainable, and fresh adjudication was required. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82296