https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34362 Clandestine removal of additional CTD bars could not be sustained on the basis of furnace oil consumption alone where the basic raw material figures matched the records and the assessee gave a plausible, evidence-backed explanation for higher fuel use due to furnace damage, heat loss and repairs. Rule 173E allows estimation of normal production by reference to relevant factors, but the Revenue still had to prove the larger alleged removal under the addendum notice. The record showed no admission by the assessee of removals beyond the quantity already covered by the first notice, and the Tribunal's factual appreciation was a possible view, not perverse. The Bombay HC upheld setting aside the additional duty and penalty. en-us Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34362 Clandestine removal of additional CTD bars could not be sustained on the basis of furnace oil consumption alone where the basic raw material figures matched the records and the assessee gave a plausible, evidence-backed explanation for higher fuel use due to furnace damage, heat loss and repairs. Rule 173E allows estimation of normal production by reference to relevant factors, but the Revenue still had to prove the larger alleged removal under the addendum notice. The record showed no admission by the assessee of removals beyond the quantity already covered by the first notice, and the Tribunal's factual appreciation was a possible view, not perverse. The Bombay HC upheld setting aside the additional duty and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34362