https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768453 Limitation under the Central Excise adjudication framework was treated as enforceable where investigation and notice proceedings extended beyond the prescribed time, and the objection was accepted in favour of the assessee. Allegations of clandestine removal were also rejected because the demand rested on stock calculations and arithmetic assumptions without tangible, independent evidence such as transporter, buyer, or other corroborative material. The commentary reiterates that clandestine removal cannot be established by conjecture, presumptions, or mere stock discrepancy; it requires concrete proof of actual removal and sale. As a result, the demand and penalties were found unsustainable on both limitation and merits. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Apr 2025 08:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768453 Limitation under the Central Excise adjudication framework was treated as enforceable where investigation and notice proceedings extended beyond the prescribed time, and the objection was accepted in favour of the assessee. Allegations of clandestine removal were also rejected because the demand rested on stock calculations and arithmetic assumptions without tangible, independent evidence such as transporter, buyer, or other corroborative material. The commentary reiterates that clandestine removal cannot be established by conjecture, presumptions, or mere stock discrepancy; it requires concrete proof of actual removal and sale. As a result, the demand and penalties were found unsustainable on both limitation and merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768453