https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203477 The Adjudicating Authority dropped charges against a respondent in a case involving a shortage of 51.850 MT of final product, leading to duty demand and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the need for precise verification of stock shortages, rejecting the reliance on eye estimation without physical weighment. The judgment stressed the requirement of corroborative evidence for charges of clandestine removal, highlighting the insufficiency of the manager's statement alone. Due to the lack of tangible evidence supporting clandestine removal beyond the manager's admission, the Revenue's appeal was rejected. en-us Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 May 2011 10:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203477 The Adjudicating Authority dropped charges against a respondent in a case involving a shortage of 51.850 MT of final product, leading to duty demand and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the need for precise verification of stock shortages, rejecting the reliance on eye estimation without physical weighment. The judgment stressed the requirement of corroborative evidence for charges of clandestine removal, highlighting the insufficiency of the manager's statement alone. Due to the lack of tangible evidence supporting clandestine removal beyond the manager's admission, the Revenue's appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203477