https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381431 Clandestine removal demands cannot be sustained on input-output ratio and mathematical projection alone unless supported by tangible investigative evidence. The assessee challenged the estimated yield by pointing to process loss, a chartered engineer's assessment, and comparisons with similar units, while the department failed to conduct buyer-side inquiries or place corroborative material on record to prove actual unaccounted clearance. In the absence of independent evidence of clandestine removal, the projected demand was held unsustainable and set aside, with relief granted to the assessee. en-us Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381431 Clandestine removal demands cannot be sustained on input-output ratio and mathematical projection alone unless supported by tangible investigative evidence. The assessee challenged the estimated yield by pointing to process loss, a chartered engineer's assessment, and comparisons with similar units, while the department failed to conduct buyer-side inquiries or place corroborative material on record to prove actual unaccounted clearance. In the absence of independent evidence of clandestine removal, the projected demand was held unsustainable and set aside, with relief granted to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381431