https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364985 Excise duty could not be sustained on a mere discrepancy between an assessee's internal operational report and ER-1 returns where no independent evidence of clandestine removal was produced. A private management record prepared for accounting purposes, without corroboration, was insufficient to establish suppressed clearance. The demand also failed because the department had not first established the assessee's capacity to manufacture the alleged differential quantity. The Tribunal held that clandestine removal must rest on corroborative evidence and a proper factual foundation for production and removal, and the impugned demand was set aside. en-us Thu, 17 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Aug 2018 07:26:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364985 Excise duty could not be sustained on a mere discrepancy between an assessee's internal operational report and ER-1 returns where no independent evidence of clandestine removal was produced. A private management record prepared for accounting purposes, without corroboration, was insufficient to establish suppressed clearance. The demand also failed because the department had not first established the assessee's capacity to manufacture the alleged differential quantity. The Tribunal held that clandestine removal must rest on corroborative evidence and a proper factual foundation for production and removal, and the impugned demand was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364985