https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116733 A duty demand based on alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of tubes from unreturned H.R. coils was not supported because the record contained only transporter statements and non-accountal, without corroboration of actual manufacture or clearance. The absence of evidence of electricity use, seizure of finished goods, sale proceeds, purchaser statements, or production personnel testimony meant the allegation could not be sustained. The plea under Notification No. 202/88 did not alter the result, because the crucial allegation of clandestine removal remained unproved. On that basis, the duty demand was unsustainable and the consequential penalties under Rule 209A could not survive. en-us Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116733 A duty demand based on alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of tubes from unreturned H.R. coils was not supported because the record contained only transporter statements and non-accountal, without corroboration of actual manufacture or clearance. The absence of evidence of electricity use, seizure of finished goods, sale proceeds, purchaser statements, or production personnel testimony meant the allegation could not be sustained. The plea under Notification No. 202/88 did not alter the result, because the crucial allegation of clandestine removal remained unproved. On that basis, the duty demand was unsustainable and the consequential penalties under Rule 209A could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116733