https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379597 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-II, Mumbai dated 22.12.2010. The decision was in favor of the appellant, who successfully argued against duty demand based on discrepancies in LPG production figures for the financial year 2004-05, citing unaccounted reprocessing and captive consumption as reasons for the differences. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence to prove clandestine removal and overturned the decision based on insufficient proof presented by the respondent. en-us Thu, 02 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 May 2019 06:36:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379597 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-II, Mumbai dated 22.12.2010. The decision was in favor of the appellant, who successfully argued against duty demand based on discrepancies in LPG production figures for the financial year 2004-05, citing unaccounted reprocessing and captive consumption as reasons for the differences. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence to prove clandestine removal and overturned the decision based on insufficient proof presented by the respondent. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379597