https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80675 Duty demand for a period beyond 20-08-1985 could not be sustained where the show cause notice relied only on the same search record and statements already used in earlier proceedings, with no independent evidence of clandestine clearances for the later period. The extended demand was therefore set aside. Penalty also failed because it rested on the same unsupported allegation of post-20-08-1985 removals, and once the demand for the later period was unsustainable, no separate basis remained for additional penalty. The stated principle is that an extended duty demand must be supported by substantive evidence specific to that period, and a penalty based on the same deficient demand cannot survive. en-us Fri, 15 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:37:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80675 Duty demand for a period beyond 20-08-1985 could not be sustained where the show cause notice relied only on the same search record and statements already used in earlier proceedings, with no independent evidence of clandestine clearances for the later period. The extended demand was therefore set aside. Penalty also failed because it rested on the same unsupported allegation of post-20-08-1985 removals, and once the demand for the later period was unsustainable, no separate basis remained for additional penalty. The stated principle is that an extended duty demand must be supported by substantive evidence specific to that period, and a penalty based on the same deficient demand cannot survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80675