https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120669 A demand for duty and penalty based only on a discrepancy between production slips and RG-1 records could not be sustained where there was no independent corroborative evidence of clandestine removal. The explanation that the difference arose from a higher actual burning loss than the loss reflected in production records was not properly rebutted, and the record lacked evidence of excess raw material use, actual clearance, transport, buyers, or flow-back of money. In the absence of such supporting material, clandestine removal was not established and the demand and penalty were held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:17:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120669 A demand for duty and penalty based only on a discrepancy between production slips and RG-1 records could not be sustained where there was no independent corroborative evidence of clandestine removal. The explanation that the difference arose from a higher actual burning loss than the loss reflected in production records was not properly rebutted, and the record lacked evidence of excess raw material use, actual clearance, transport, buyers, or flow-back of money. In the absence of such supporting material, clandestine removal was not established and the demand and penalty were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120669