https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266680 The appellant, involved in manufacturing MS Ingots, faced proceedings for a shortage detected during inspection. Despite admitting the shortage and debiting duty, allegations of clandestine clearance were made. The Panchnama method used was criticized for lack of actual weighing. However, as no evidence of clandestine removal existed, and the appellant only acknowledged shortages, the court referred to a previous judgment. Relying on the Allahabad High Court precedent, it was concluded that shortages alone do not prove duty evasion without evidence of clandestine removal. The impugned order was overturned, granting relief to the appellant. en-us Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:43:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266680 The appellant, involved in manufacturing MS Ingots, faced proceedings for a shortage detected during inspection. Despite admitting the shortage and debiting duty, allegations of clandestine clearance were made. The Panchnama method used was criticized for lack of actual weighing. However, as no evidence of clandestine removal existed, and the appellant only acknowledged shortages, the court referred to a previous judgment. Relying on the Allahabad High Court precedent, it was concluded that shortages alone do not prove duty evasion without evidence of clandestine removal. The impugned order was overturned, granting relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266680