https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54584 Shortages or invisible loss at a job worker's end, by themselves, do not create central excise liability on goods sent for job work under Rule 57F(4) unless there is proof of removal or another duty-triggering event. Debit notes raised under the parties' contractual yield adjustment did not establish that the goods were received back and clandestinely removed. On that basis, duty demand and penalty were held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:04:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54584 Shortages or invisible loss at a job worker's end, by themselves, do not create central excise liability on goods sent for job work under Rule 57F(4) unless there is proof of removal or another duty-triggering event. Debit notes raised under the parties' contractual yield adjustment did not establish that the goods were received back and clandestinely removed. On that basis, duty demand and penalty were held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54584