https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248260 A demand of central excise duty based on alleged clandestine removal failed because it rested only on theoretical calculations drawn from input consumption and production norms. The assessee supported its defence with a chart, contemporaneous declaration, and affidavits showing that the disputed input was used in manufacturing goods under Chapters 39 and 48, while the Revenue produced no positive evidence of excess raw material use, excess production, or unaccounted clearance. As clandestine removal is a serious allegation requiring reliable, tangible corroboration, the finding was rejected and the duty demand held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:34:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248260 A demand of central excise duty based on alleged clandestine removal failed because it rested only on theoretical calculations drawn from input consumption and production norms. The assessee supported its defence with a chart, contemporaneous declaration, and affidavits showing that the disputed input was used in manufacturing goods under Chapters 39 and 48, while the Revenue produced no positive evidence of excess raw material use, excess production, or unaccounted clearance. As clandestine removal is a serious allegation requiring reliable, tangible corroboration, the finding was rejected and the duty demand held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248260