https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268428 Stock discrepancy found during overnight verification was treated as a normal variation rather than proof of clandestine removal, because the appellant maintained very large inventory and the net difference was only about 4% of average stock. The Tribunal noted that counting took place in poor lighting and that errors could not be ruled out in those conditions. On that basis, the demand of duty, penalty and confiscation was held unsustainable. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268428 Stock discrepancy found during overnight verification was treated as a normal variation rather than proof of clandestine removal, because the appellant maintained very large inventory and the net difference was only about 4% of average stock. The Tribunal noted that counting took place in poor lighting and that errors could not be ruled out in those conditions. On that basis, the demand of duty, penalty and confiscation was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268428