https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126285 A demand for duty and reversal of Cenvat credit based only on excess wastage calculations could not be sustained where there was no tangible evidence of actual clandestine removal, no identifiable buyer, and the departmental statements had been retracted. The tribunal held that theoretical comparisons with wastage norms and other factories were insufficient to prove diversion of plastic granules. As the foundation for clandestine removal failed, confiscation of the seized granules and the connected penalties also could not stand. The adjudication orders were therefore set aside on merits, with consequential relief to the appellants. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126285 A demand for duty and reversal of Cenvat credit based only on excess wastage calculations could not be sustained where there was no tangible evidence of actual clandestine removal, no identifiable buyer, and the departmental statements had been retracted. The tribunal held that theoretical comparisons with wastage norms and other factories were insufficient to prove diversion of plastic granules. As the foundation for clandestine removal failed, confiscation of the seized granules and the connected penalties also could not stand. The adjudication orders were therefore set aside on merits, with consequential relief to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126285