https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770207 A central excise demand based only on estimated input-output ratios and a third-party technical opinion could not be sustained where no corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal was produced. The record lacked buyer statements, vehicle details, private records, cash transaction evidence, or any independent study of the plant, so the allegation rested on assumption rather than proof. The demand was also unsustainable on limitation because the notice did not establish specific suppression or deliberate withholding of facts to justify the extended period. The impugned order was therefore set aside and relief followed as per law. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Apr 2026 18:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770207 A central excise demand based only on estimated input-output ratios and a third-party technical opinion could not be sustained where no corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal was produced. The record lacked buyer statements, vehicle details, private records, cash transaction evidence, or any independent study of the plant, so the allegation rested on assumption rather than proof. The demand was also unsustainable on limitation because the notice did not establish specific suppression or deliberate withholding of facts to justify the extended period. The impugned order was therefore set aside and relief followed as per law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770207