https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267709 A demand for clandestine removal cannot be sustained merely on a discrepancy between wastage reported in ARE-2 and the Form IV register; independent corroborative evidence of actual removal is required. Where the assessee engaged in export-related manufacture under Rule 19(2) explained the difference and the department produced no material showing diversion of goods into the domestic market, the allegation rests only on inference and fails. The demand based solely on differential wastage was therefore not sustainable. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:41:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267709 A demand for clandestine removal cannot be sustained merely on a discrepancy between wastage reported in ARE-2 and the Form IV register; independent corroborative evidence of actual removal is required. Where the assessee engaged in export-related manufacture under Rule 19(2) explained the difference and the department produced no material showing diversion of goods into the domestic market, the allegation rests only on inference and fails. The demand based solely on differential wastage was therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267709