https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235637 A presumption of continued manufacture at a particular specification may arise from direct inspection and sampling, but differential central excise duty for an extended period cannot be sustained unless the department first establishes the foundational fact by reliable evidence. The Court held that this presumption was not available on the facts because no fresh sample had been drawn and the case rested only on seized records, file contents, and employee statements. Test reports obtained for another purpose were also not treated as conclusive for the entire period. The lower appellate view restricting the demand was therefore left undisturbed, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235637 A presumption of continued manufacture at a particular specification may arise from direct inspection and sampling, but differential central excise duty for an extended period cannot be sustained unless the department first establishes the foundational fact by reliable evidence. The Court held that this presumption was not available on the facts because no fresh sample had been drawn and the case rested only on seized records, file contents, and employee statements. Test reports obtained for another purpose were also not treated as conclusive for the entire period. The lower appellate view restricting the demand was therefore left undisturbed, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235637