https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84708 Duty demand and penalty based on alleged clandestine removal could not be sustained where the only basis was excess stock reflected in bank pledge records and Income Tax material. The excise case depended substantially on an Income Tax assessment order, but that foundation had already been reversed by the competent Income Tax authorities, and the stock inflation finding had been accepted in income-tax proceedings. With no independent corroborative or affirmative evidence of actual excess stock, manufacture, or clandestine removal, mere suspicion or inference from stock statements was insufficient. The demand and penalty were therefore held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. en-us Sat, 25 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:21:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84708 Duty demand and penalty based on alleged clandestine removal could not be sustained where the only basis was excess stock reflected in bank pledge records and Income Tax material. The excise case depended substantially on an Income Tax assessment order, but that foundation had already been reversed by the competent Income Tax authorities, and the stock inflation finding had been accepted in income-tax proceedings. With no independent corroborative or affirmative evidence of actual excess stock, manufacture, or clandestine removal, mere suspicion or inference from stock statements was insufficient. The demand and penalty were therefore held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 25 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84708