The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order....

The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Department failed to discharge the onus of proving clandestine removal of goods, relying solely on assumptions, presumptions, and uncorroborated evidence such as loose dispatch slips and statements lacking evidentiary value. Key investigative aspects, including the alleged cash trail, procurement of raw and packing materials, and corroboration of statements under Section 70, were inadequately addressed. The penalty under Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017, imposed on the transport company was quashed due to the absence of mens rea and no proof of conscious involvement in duty evasion. The Tribunal held that personal penalty cannot be imposed without specific allegations demonstrating intentional evasion. Consequently, the Department's demand and penalties were unsustainable, resulting in the dismissal of charges and penalties against the appellants.