https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245596 The case involved the confirmation of a duty demand and penalty against the respondents for shortages in stock verification. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal due to lack of evidence for clandestine removal and insufficiency of computerized stock statements. The Revenue challenged the decision, but it was upheld based on the requirement of substantial evidence for charges of clandestine activities. The judgment stressed the importance of meeting evidentiary standards in duty demand cases, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2014 11:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245596 The case involved the confirmation of a duty demand and penalty against the respondents for shortages in stock verification. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal due to lack of evidence for clandestine removal and insufficiency of computerized stock statements. The Revenue challenged the decision, but it was upheld based on the requirement of substantial evidence for charges of clandestine activities. The judgment stressed the importance of meeting evidentiary standards in duty demand cases, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245596