https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49891 Clandestine removal under central excise law must be proved by positive, affirmative evidence and cannot rest on assumed scrap-generation ratios, reconstructed production figures, or the absence of fixed production norms. The Tribunal rejected duty and penalty where the demand was based on a hypothetical 23% scrap ratio, with no corroborative material or actual evidence of clandestine clearance, and noted that recycled scrap within the factory negatived any motive to inflate scrap generation. It also found a minor stock shortage insufficient to sustain duty, held Section 11AB interest inapplicable retrospectively for the relevant period, and set aside the penalty as the substantive demand had failed. en-us Wed, 24 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:16:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49891 Clandestine removal under central excise law must be proved by positive, affirmative evidence and cannot rest on assumed scrap-generation ratios, reconstructed production figures, or the absence of fixed production norms. The Tribunal rejected duty and penalty where the demand was based on a hypothetical 23% scrap ratio, with no corroborative material or actual evidence of clandestine clearance, and noted that recycled scrap within the factory negatived any motive to inflate scrap generation. It also found a minor stock shortage insufficient to sustain duty, held Section 11AB interest inapplicable retrospectively for the relevant period, and set aside the penalty as the substantive demand had failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49891