https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78632 The appeals under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act were dismissed as no substantial legal issue arose. The case involved disputes over alloy steel inputs, duty liability, and clandestine removal. The court upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority, Commissioner (Appeal), and Tribunal, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence. The appellant's arguments regarding natural justice violations and the validity of the recovery letter were not accepted. The judgment underscores the significance of sufficient evidence in determining duty liability and clandestine removal cases. en-us Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78632 The appeals under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act were dismissed as no substantial legal issue arose. The case involved disputes over alloy steel inputs, duty liability, and clandestine removal. The court upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority, Commissioner (Appeal), and Tribunal, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence. The appellant's arguments regarding natural justice violations and the validity of the recovery letter were not accepted. The judgment underscores the significance of sufficient evidence in determining duty liability and clandestine removal cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78632