https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262576 A minor discrepancy in input stock was treated as notional and attributable to accounting errors, not as evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal examined the accounting system, the overall volume of inputs used, and the surrounding stock position, including excess stock in other inputs during the same period. After correction, the shortage was only 0.24%, which supported the respondent's bona fides and the conclusion that the discrepancy was immaterial. On that factual basis, no interference was called for with the Tribunal's finding that there was no clandestine removal of inputs. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:04:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262576 A minor discrepancy in input stock was treated as notional and attributable to accounting errors, not as evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal examined the accounting system, the overall volume of inputs used, and the surrounding stock position, including excess stock in other inputs during the same period. After correction, the shortage was only 0.24%, which supported the respondent's bona fides and the conclusion that the discrepancy was immaterial. On that factual basis, no interference was called for with the Tribunal's finding that there was no clandestine removal of inputs. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262576