https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767390 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal against clandestine removal allegations based on discrepancies between ER-1 and ER-4 returns. The appellant explained the 945.900 MT difference as typographical error (10 MT typed as 100 MT) and captive consumption of scrap shown in sales column due to lack of specific column in ER-4. The tribunal held the demand unsustainable as Department relied solely on audit objection without considering documentary evidence. Additionally, the demand was time-barred as Department waited nearly two years after becoming aware of the issue to issue show cause notice without justification for extended period invocation. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:35:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767390 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal against clandestine removal allegations based on discrepancies between ER-1 and ER-4 returns. The appellant explained the 945.900 MT difference as typographical error (10 MT typed as 100 MT) and captive consumption of scrap shown in sales column due to lack of specific column in ER-4. The tribunal held the demand unsustainable as Department relied solely on audit objection without considering documentary evidence. Additionally, the demand was time-barred as Department waited nearly two years after becoming aware of the issue to issue show cause notice without justification for extended period invocation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767390