https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271495 The judgment rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Adjudicating authority's decision that clandestine removal could not be established solely on the basis of the auditors' test check. The court emphasized the need for tangible evidence to prove charges of clandestine removal and found that the discrepancies in finished goods were reconciled due to wrong recording of codes, not actual shortages. The Respondent's argument regarding duty liability on semi-finished goods was accepted, citing the lack of evidence supporting excess raw material procurement or clandestine removal. The judgment underscored the importance of concrete proof over assumptions in such cases, ultimately affirming the original order based on settled legal principles. en-us Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271495 The judgment rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Adjudicating authority's decision that clandestine removal could not be established solely on the basis of the auditors' test check. The court emphasized the need for tangible evidence to prove charges of clandestine removal and found that the discrepancies in finished goods were reconciled due to wrong recording of codes, not actual shortages. The Respondent's argument regarding duty liability on semi-finished goods was accepted, citing the lack of evidence supporting excess raw material procurement or clandestine removal. The judgment underscored the importance of concrete proof over assumptions in such cases, ultimately affirming the original order based on settled legal principles. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271495