https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100024 Departmental action based on alleged abnormal variance between theoretical and actual cut-tobacco consumption, and on alleged clandestine removal, was held unsustainable because the cigarette manual required physical verification to determine normal working loss, yet no such verification or experiment was conducted and no unaccounted stock was found. The allegations rested on assumptions and secondary material, without direct evidence of clandestine clearance, and the variance issue was already within departmental knowledge, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. As the substantive demand failed, the proposed penalty and interest also could not survive. en-us Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:47:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100024 Departmental action based on alleged abnormal variance between theoretical and actual cut-tobacco consumption, and on alleged clandestine removal, was held unsustainable because the cigarette manual required physical verification to determine normal working loss, yet no such verification or experiment was conducted and no unaccounted stock was found. The allegations rested on assumptions and secondary material, without direct evidence of clandestine clearance, and the variance issue was already within departmental knowledge, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. As the substantive demand failed, the proposed penalty and interest also could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100024