https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101221 Third-party transport register entries, without corroborative evidence, were held insufficient to prove clandestine receipt of raw material or clandestine removal of processed goods. The alleged demand failed because the record was not supported by direct evidence: consignors, buyers, or relevant employees were not examined, no goods were intercepted, and the charge required positive and tangible proof rather than assumption. Penalty under Section 11AC was also held unavailable for any period before 28-9-1996, since the provision could not operate retrospectively. On that basis, the demand and penalties were set aside. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:53:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101221 Third-party transport register entries, without corroborative evidence, were held insufficient to prove clandestine receipt of raw material or clandestine removal of processed goods. The alleged demand failed because the record was not supported by direct evidence: consignors, buyers, or relevant employees were not examined, no goods were intercepted, and the charge required positive and tangible proof rather than assumption. Penalty under Section 11AC was also held unavailable for any period before 28-9-1996, since the provision could not operate retrospectively. On that basis, the demand and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101221