https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54270 A duty demand based on alleged shortage of finished goods cannot be sustained without cogent evidence of clandestine removal. The production incharge's statement did not amount to an admission of shortage, and mere attestation of the panchnama did not establish acceptance of the alleged discrepancy. The partner's later statement also did not provide conclusive proof against the company. Cross-examination of the panch witnesses was wrongly declined even though their evidence was central to the allegation. In the absence of tangible corroboration, the revenue failed to discharge its burden, and the duty demand and consequential penalty were set aside. en-us Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:29:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54270 A duty demand based on alleged shortage of finished goods cannot be sustained without cogent evidence of clandestine removal. The production incharge's statement did not amount to an admission of shortage, and mere attestation of the panchnama did not establish acceptance of the alleged discrepancy. The partner's later statement also did not provide conclusive proof against the company. Cross-examination of the panch witnesses was wrongly declined even though their evidence was central to the allegation. In the absence of tangible corroboration, the revenue failed to discharge its burden, and the duty demand and consequential penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54270