https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469805 Duty demand based only on raw material reconciliation and a stock discrepancy was held unsustainable where there was no tangible evidence of clandestine removal. The text states that differences between raw material consumption and alleged output could not, by themselves, prove actual production or unrecorded clearances, because production may vary due to raw material quality, plant utilisation, rejection, wastage and invisible losses. It also notes that confiscation of the seized excess goods had already been set aside and that the revenue had produced no positive corroborative evidence. The impugned order was therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jul 2026 10:15:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469805 Duty demand based only on raw material reconciliation and a stock discrepancy was held unsustainable where there was no tangible evidence of clandestine removal. The text states that differences between raw material consumption and alleged output could not, by themselves, prove actual production or unrecorded clearances, because production may vary due to raw material quality, plant utilisation, rejection, wastage and invisible losses. It also notes that confiscation of the seized excess goods had already been set aside and that the revenue had produced no positive corroborative evidence. The impugned order was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469805