https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126715 Duty demand and penalties based on alleged excess electricity consumption failed because the department relied on theoretical estimates rather than tangible proof of clandestine manufacture and clearance. The assessee's explanations for higher power use, including voltage fluctuations, raw material quality, and furnace conditions, were not effectively rebutted, and correspondence with the electricity board supported voltage fluctuation. Driver statements also lost evidentiary value, and stock discrepancies had already been rejected as estimate-based. Suspicion from electricity consumption could not replace corroborative evidence, so the demand and penalties were set aside. en-us Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126715 Duty demand and penalties based on alleged excess electricity consumption failed because the department relied on theoretical estimates rather than tangible proof of clandestine manufacture and clearance. The assessee's explanations for higher power use, including voltage fluctuations, raw material quality, and furnace conditions, were not effectively rebutted, and correspondence with the electricity board supported voltage fluctuation. Driver statements also lost evidentiary value, and stock discrepancies had already been rejected as estimate-based. Suspicion from electricity consumption could not replace corroborative evidence, so the demand and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126715