https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331155 Confiscation of stock and penalty under Rule 25 could not be sustained where the alleged excess stock was determined only by eye estimation during stock verification and not by actual weighment. Because the goods were not weighed and the exact quantity of raw material and finished goods was not reliably established, the foundation for treating the stock as excess failed in law. The impugned order was therefore set aside and relief granted against confiscation and penalty. en-us Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331155 Confiscation of stock and penalty under Rule 25 could not be sustained where the alleged excess stock was determined only by eye estimation during stock verification and not by actual weighment. Because the goods were not weighed and the exact quantity of raw material and finished goods was not reliably established, the foundation for treating the stock as excess failed in law. The impugned order was therefore set aside and relief granted against confiscation and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331155