https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1795 Excess raw material was held not liable to confiscation where the stock discrepancy was explained by the absence of physical verification for about a month and no material showed an intention to clear the inputs clandestinely. The allegation that the excess ingots were meant to be converted into rolled products and removed without account remained unproved, so confiscation and the related penalties could not be sustained. Applying the same approach to unaccounted raw material, the Tribunal affirmed that penal action cannot rest on conjecture or presumption without evidence of clandestine removal. The confiscation and penalties were set aside and the Revenue's appeals were rejected. en-us Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1795 Excess raw material was held not liable to confiscation where the stock discrepancy was explained by the absence of physical verification for about a month and no material showed an intention to clear the inputs clandestinely. The allegation that the excess ingots were meant to be converted into rolled products and removed without account remained unproved, so confiscation and the related penalties could not be sustained. Applying the same approach to unaccounted raw material, the Tribunal affirmed that penal action cannot rest on conjecture or presumption without evidence of clandestine removal. The confiscation and penalties were set aside and the Revenue's appeals were rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1795