https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213959 Demand for alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance was examined on the basis of raw material shortages, private records, buyer admissions and surrounding evidence. One view treated these materials as sufficient to establish unaccounted production and removals on a preponderance of evidence, while the contrary view held that the balance demand rested mainly on presumption from input-output calculations without clear proof of removal. Penalty was also considered as consequential to the duty demand, but that approach was not accepted where the underlying demand itself remained unresolved. The text records a difference of opinion and no final majority disposal on the balance demand or penalty. en-us Tue, 15 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213959 Demand for alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance was examined on the basis of raw material shortages, private records, buyer admissions and surrounding evidence. One view treated these materials as sufficient to establish unaccounted production and removals on a preponderance of evidence, while the contrary view held that the balance demand rested mainly on presumption from input-output calculations without clear proof of removal. Penalty was also considered as consequential to the duty demand, but that approach was not accepted where the underlying demand itself remained unresolved. The text records a difference of opinion and no final majority disposal on the balance demand or penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213959