https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328518 The appeals were consolidated arising from the same order-in-appeal regarding central excise duty demand on yarn. The appellants contested discrepancies in yarn quantities found during physical verification. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of substantial evidence to establish clandestine removal, emphasizing the need for corroboration beyond mere shortages. Discrepancies between log book entries and RG-I records were also disputed, with the Tribunal noting the absence of evidence supporting unaccounted clearance. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal found the demands unsustainable due to insufficient evidence, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals in favor of the appellants. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 11:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328518 The appeals were consolidated arising from the same order-in-appeal regarding central excise duty demand on yarn. The appellants contested discrepancies in yarn quantities found during physical verification. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of substantial evidence to establish clandestine removal, emphasizing the need for corroboration beyond mere shortages. Discrepancies between log book entries and RG-I records were also disputed, with the Tribunal noting the absence of evidence supporting unaccounted clearance. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal found the demands unsustainable due to insufficient evidence, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals in favor of the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328518