https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328215 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner of Central Excise appeals' order. It found deficiencies in the stocktaking process, rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods due to lack of evidence, and deemed statements recorded during inspection unreliable. The Tribunal held that the deposit of tax did not imply guilt and emphasized the necessity of concrete proof in excise duty matters. Consequently, the imposition of duty and penalty was overturned, providing consequential relief to the appellant. en-us Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328215 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner of Central Excise appeals' order. It found deficiencies in the stocktaking process, rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods due to lack of evidence, and deemed statements recorded during inspection unreliable. The Tribunal held that the deposit of tax did not imply guilt and emphasized the necessity of concrete proof in excise duty matters. Consequently, the imposition of duty and penalty was overturned, providing consequential relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328215