https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249321 Central excise duty demands for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of tea cannot be sustained on comparative register entries, stock calculations, raw material consumption figures or cash-book inferences alone, because such arithmetical assumptions do not amount to tangible proof of actual manufacture and clearance. The larger demand was therefore set aside. Liability was, however, upheld for quantities covered by parallel invoices, sample clearances without proof of duty payment, and removals evidenced by weighment slips, since the explanations for identical invoice serial numbers, receipt of goods by a consignee, and the duty-paid character of those removals were unsatisfactory. Penalty was reduced accordingly. en-us Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:23:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249321 Central excise duty demands for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of tea cannot be sustained on comparative register entries, stock calculations, raw material consumption figures or cash-book inferences alone, because such arithmetical assumptions do not amount to tangible proof of actual manufacture and clearance. The larger demand was therefore set aside. Liability was, however, upheld for quantities covered by parallel invoices, sample clearances without proof of duty payment, and removals evidenced by weighment slips, since the explanations for identical invoice serial numbers, receipt of goods by a consignee, and the duty-paid character of those removals were unsatisfactory. Penalty was reduced accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249321