https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84417 Where clandestine removal of goods was established but the actual date of clearance could not be proved, duty was computed by applying Rule 9A(5) with the date of detection as the relevant basis, and year-wise allocation on the basis of raw material purchases was rejected as conjectural. The quantified quantity of removed goods was not disputed, so the excise demand was sustained. The penalty, however, was reduced because the proceedings had remained pending for a long period and the demand had already been substantially reduced in re-adjudication, making a lesser penalty sufficient in the circumstances. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:03:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84417 Where clandestine removal of goods was established but the actual date of clearance could not be proved, duty was computed by applying Rule 9A(5) with the date of detection as the relevant basis, and year-wise allocation on the basis of raw material purchases was rejected as conjectural. The quantified quantity of removed goods was not disputed, so the excise demand was sustained. The penalty, however, was reduced because the proceedings had remained pending for a long period and the demand had already been substantially reduced in re-adjudication, making a lesser penalty sufficient in the circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84417