https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109979 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order-in-original confiscating seized goods, confirming duty, and imposing penalties based on allegations of clandestine removal of goods without duty payment. The appellants, a textile processing firm and its partner, successfully contested the charges by demonstrating insufficient evidence to support the allegations. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence presented, including inadmissible witness statements and lack of corroboration. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal ruled that confiscation and penalties were not warranted for the alleged evasion of additional duty, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants and allowing their appeals. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:47:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109979 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order-in-original confiscating seized goods, confirming duty, and imposing penalties based on allegations of clandestine removal of goods without duty payment. The appellants, a textile processing firm and its partner, successfully contested the charges by demonstrating insufficient evidence to support the allegations. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence presented, including inadmissible witness statements and lack of corroboration. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal ruled that confiscation and penalties were not warranted for the alleged evasion of additional duty, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants and allowing their appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109979