https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51482 Duty demand and penalty based only on discrepancies between a private production record and the statutory RG-1 register were not sustainable where stock tallied with recorded balances and there was no independent evidence of excess raw material consumption, higher electricity use, or actual clandestine manufacture and removal. A single explanation for one date could not be extended to the entire period without supporting proof, and mere record mismatch did not establish suppression or mens rea. The extended period of limitation was therefore not invocable, and the demand and penalty failed. en-us Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:18:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51482 Duty demand and penalty based only on discrepancies between a private production record and the statutory RG-1 register were not sustainable where stock tallied with recorded balances and there was no independent evidence of excess raw material consumption, higher electricity use, or actual clandestine manufacture and removal. A single explanation for one date could not be extended to the entire period without supporting proof, and mere record mismatch did not establish suppression or mens rea. The extended period of limitation was therefore not invocable, and the demand and penalty failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51482