https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99505 Allegations of clandestine manufacture were not sustained where the record did not conclusively show that no manufacture took place at the unit, the Department's statements were not fully corroborated, and the explanation for records and workers remained unrebutted. Permitted movement of core assemblies under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be treated as unlawful without proof that the permission had been withdrawn or discredited. The demand and penalties against Archana and Vidarbha were therefore set aside. The Department also failed to show a sufficient basis to disturb the order dropping proceedings against Nippon, so that relief was maintained. en-us Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:56:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99505 Allegations of clandestine manufacture were not sustained where the record did not conclusively show that no manufacture took place at the unit, the Department's statements were not fully corroborated, and the explanation for records and workers remained unrebutted. Permitted movement of core assemblies under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be treated as unlawful without proof that the permission had been withdrawn or discredited. The demand and penalties against Archana and Vidarbha were therefore set aside. The Department also failed to show a sufficient basis to disturb the order dropping proceedings against Nippon, so that relief was maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99505