https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103710 Clandestine receipt and removal in central excise cannot be sustained on an uncross-examined statement and private diary entries alone where no corroborative evidence supports the allegation. The record lacked invoice trail, gate pass, seized goods, incriminating purchase material, buyer confirmation, or departmental corroboration, so the charge remained based on assumption rather than tangible proof. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was treated as prospective and could not be applied to impose penalty for a period before its commencement. On that basis, the duty demand and connected penalties were set aside. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:30:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103710 Clandestine receipt and removal in central excise cannot be sustained on an uncross-examined statement and private diary entries alone where no corroborative evidence supports the allegation. The record lacked invoice trail, gate pass, seized goods, incriminating purchase material, buyer confirmation, or departmental corroboration, so the charge remained based on assumption rather than tangible proof. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was treated as prospective and could not be applied to impose penalty for a period before its commencement. On that basis, the duty demand and connected penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103710