https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342820 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order related to duty demand calculation based on electricity consumption. It found the 600 unit PMT arbitrary and emphasized the need for evidence beyond consumption variation to confirm demand. The evidence from a kachcha chit recovered was deemed irrelevant to the demand period. The partner's statement on electricity consumption was rejected due to production variations, leading to the conclusion that there was no proof of clandestine removal of goods. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if applicable. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2017 18:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342820 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order related to duty demand calculation based on electricity consumption. It found the 600 unit PMT arbitrary and emphasized the need for evidence beyond consumption variation to confirm demand. The evidence from a kachcha chit recovered was deemed irrelevant to the demand period. The partner's statement on electricity consumption was rejected due to production variations, leading to the conclusion that there was no proof of clandestine removal of goods. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if applicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342820