https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255065 The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the demand of duty and penalty imposed on the respondent for shortage of stock in the factory. The tribunal emphasized the requirement for tangible evidence to prove clandestine removal, noting the absence of essential documentation and supporting the use of eye estimation due to the lack of a weigh bridge on the premises. Without concrete evidence of wrongdoing and considering the respondent's reasonable explanation for the stock variance, the tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255065 The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the demand of duty and penalty imposed on the respondent for shortage of stock in the factory. The tribunal emphasized the requirement for tangible evidence to prove clandestine removal, noting the absence of essential documentation and supporting the use of eye estimation due to the lack of a weigh bridge on the premises. Without concrete evidence of wrongdoing and considering the respondent's reasonable explanation for the stock variance, the tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255065