https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108385 The Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the duty demand and penalty for alleged clandestine removal of goods, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence to substantiate such charges. The Commissioner's decision to dismiss the duty demand and penalty was upheld due to insufficient proof of clandestine removal, highlighting the importance of substantive evidence over presumptions. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the calculation method used by the adjudicating authority and emphasized the burden of proof on the department to provide convincing evidence. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:04:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108385 The Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the duty demand and penalty for alleged clandestine removal of goods, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence to substantiate such charges. The Commissioner's decision to dismiss the duty demand and penalty was upheld due to insufficient proof of clandestine removal, highlighting the importance of substantive evidence over presumptions. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the calculation method used by the adjudicating authority and emphasized the burden of proof on the department to provide convincing evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108385