https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213469 The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, rejecting the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient evidence supporting duty demand and penalty imposition based on discrepancies in physical stock of M.S. Ingots. The judgment emphasized the need for accurate stock verification methods and concrete proof to substantiate allegations of clandestine removal, highlighting the burden of proof on the Revenue. The absence of substantial evidence linking shortages to unauthorized removal led to the dismissal of the appeal, underscoring the importance of precise verification and evidentiary support in such cases. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213469 The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, rejecting the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient evidence supporting duty demand and penalty imposition based on discrepancies in physical stock of M.S. Ingots. The judgment emphasized the need for accurate stock verification methods and concrete proof to substantiate allegations of clandestine removal, highlighting the burden of proof on the Revenue. The absence of substantial evidence linking shortages to unauthorized removal led to the dismissal of the appeal, underscoring the importance of precise verification and evidentiary support in such cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213469