https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90858 Allegations of clandestine clearance based on Rule 57F(3) challans failed where the department could not reliably prove that finished goods were cleared as semi-finished goods or that the assessee had the relevant finishing facilities. Evidence that similar processes were carried out through multiple job workers supported the assessee's case, while ambiguous statements and limited material were insufficient to establish the claimed reaming and run-out testing capability. The burden could not be improperly shifted to the assessee to prove receipt back of finished goods; the department had to prove its allegation. On that basis, duty demand and penalties were not sustainable. en-us Mon, 08 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:08:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90858 Allegations of clandestine clearance based on Rule 57F(3) challans failed where the department could not reliably prove that finished goods were cleared as semi-finished goods or that the assessee had the relevant finishing facilities. Evidence that similar processes were carried out through multiple job workers supported the assessee's case, while ambiguous statements and limited material were insufficient to establish the claimed reaming and run-out testing capability. The burden could not be improperly shifted to the assessee to prove receipt back of finished goods; the department had to prove its allegation. On that basis, duty demand and penalties were not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90858