https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92816 A mere shortage of stock did not justify denial of exemption where the record showed no evidence of clandestine removal or use of the goods for a non-permitted purpose. On urea, the unexplained deficiency in silo stock, periodically reported and written off, was insufficient to presume non-fertiliser use, so the exemption under Notification No. 181/86-C.E. remained available. On raw naphtha, concessional treatment could not be withdrawn merely because the finished urea was short; absent proof that the input was not intended for manufacture of fertiliser and ammonia or was diverted, the differential duty demand failed. en-us Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92816 A mere shortage of stock did not justify denial of exemption where the record showed no evidence of clandestine removal or use of the goods for a non-permitted purpose. On urea, the unexplained deficiency in silo stock, periodically reported and written off, was insufficient to presume non-fertiliser use, so the exemption under Notification No. 181/86-C.E. remained available. On raw naphtha, concessional treatment could not be withdrawn merely because the finished urea was short; absent proof that the input was not intended for manufacture of fertiliser and ammonia or was diverted, the differential duty demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92816