https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353892 The tribunal found that the discrepancy in stock of finished goods was due to accounting methods, not clandestine removal. No evidence of goods being removed was found, and the difference was considered minimal compared to total production. The appellant's disclosure in audited financial statements and past practices supported their argument, leading the tribunal to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, determining the demand was hit by limitation. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner's findings as based on personal assumptions and distinguished the case from cited judgments, emphasizing the appellant's explanations for the discrepancies. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353892 The tribunal found that the discrepancy in stock of finished goods was due to accounting methods, not clandestine removal. No evidence of goods being removed was found, and the difference was considered minimal compared to total production. The appellant's disclosure in audited financial statements and past practices supported their argument, leading the tribunal to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, determining the demand was hit by limitation. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner's findings as based on personal assumptions and distinguished the case from cited judgments, emphasizing the appellant's explanations for the discrepancies. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353892