https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90944 Duty demand based on alleged clandestine removal was not sustained because the material on record did not establish clandestine manufacture, clandestine clearance, or receipt of goods by the buyer. The invoice discrepancies were explained as mistaken preparation in the name of one party while the goods were actually supplied to another, so the evidentiary basis for clandestine removal was insufficient. The lapse was confined to a procedural failure to cancel invoices that were not used for clearance, and the penalty was reduced accordingly. en-us Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:02:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90944 Duty demand based on alleged clandestine removal was not sustained because the material on record did not establish clandestine manufacture, clandestine clearance, or receipt of goods by the buyer. The invoice discrepancies were explained as mistaken preparation in the name of one party while the goods were actually supplied to another, so the evidentiary basis for clandestine removal was insufficient. The lapse was confined to a procedural failure to cancel invoices that were not used for clearance, and the penalty was reduced accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90944