https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51516 Clandestine removal under Central Excise cannot be inferred from a mere stock discrepancy between RG-1 balance and physical stock. The Tribunal held that the Department must produce direct, tangible evidence or at least sufficiently corroborative circumstantial material; a presumption based only on shortage and the nature of the goods is not enough, especially where no independent enquiry or supporting record is shown. On that basis, the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Thu, 30 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:11:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51516 Clandestine removal under Central Excise cannot be inferred from a mere stock discrepancy between RG-1 balance and physical stock. The Tribunal held that the Department must produce direct, tangible evidence or at least sufficiently corroborative circumstantial material; a presumption based only on shortage and the nature of the goods is not enough, especially where no independent enquiry or supporting record is shown. On that basis, the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51516