https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202675 HC dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding orders of the adjudicating authority and appellate forums that set aside the excise duty demand under Section 11A. HC held that the sole basis for alleging clandestine removal and stock shortage was the assessee's statement recorded under Section 14, which had been retracted, and that no physical stock verification was carried out as shown by the director's affidavit. In the absence of corroborative evidence or perversity in concurrent factual findings, no substantial question of law arose, and the demand could not be sustained. en-us Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 12:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202675 HC dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding orders of the adjudicating authority and appellate forums that set aside the excise duty demand under Section 11A. HC held that the sole basis for alleging clandestine removal and stock shortage was the assessee's statement recorded under Section 14, which had been retracted, and that no physical stock verification was carried out as shown by the director's affidavit. In the absence of corroborative evidence or perversity in concurrent factual findings, no substantial question of law arose, and the demand could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202675