https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381113 Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on theoretical norms, presumptions or uncorroborated expert opinion. The article notes that a duty demand based on inferred electricity consumption, assumed process loss and cost comparison failed because no factory-specific technical verification or positive evidence of actual suppressed manufacture and clearance was produced. It further states that suspicion cannot replace proof, expert opinion under the Evidence Act is only advisory, and tax can be levied only by authority of law. On that basis, the demand, interest and penalties were set aside for want of credible evidence. en-us Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2019 07:59:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381113 Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on theoretical norms, presumptions or uncorroborated expert opinion. The article notes that a duty demand based on inferred electricity consumption, assumed process loss and cost comparison failed because no factory-specific technical verification or positive evidence of actual suppressed manufacture and clearance was produced. It further states that suspicion cannot replace proof, expert opinion under the Evidence Act is only advisory, and tax can be levied only by authority of law. On that basis, the demand, interest and penalties were set aside for want of credible evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381113