https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119280 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand against the appellants, manufacturers of aerated waters, due to insufficient evidence of clandestine removal. The Revenue's reliance on standard input-output norms and production shortfalls was deemed inadequate to establish duty evasion. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for tangible evidence to prove such allegations, citing legal precedents and distinguishing the case from a SC decision relied upon by the Revenue. The ruling underscored that duty demands cannot be based solely on theoretical calculations or assumptions without concrete proof of clandestine activities. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119280 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand against the appellants, manufacturers of aerated waters, due to insufficient evidence of clandestine removal. The Revenue's reliance on standard input-output norms and production shortfalls was deemed inadequate to establish duty evasion. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for tangible evidence to prove such allegations, citing legal precedents and distinguishing the case from a SC decision relied upon by the Revenue. The ruling underscored that duty demands cannot be based solely on theoretical calculations or assumptions without concrete proof of clandestine activities. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119280