https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119524 The appellant, a mechanic at a vehicle manufacturer, was acquitted in a criminal case related to theft. The Central Excise Department imposed a penalty based on police statements, but the court found insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the theft. The duty liability for clandestine removal rested with the manufacturer, not the appellant. As the theft charge was not proven, the penalty was overturned, and the appeal was successful. The discrepancy between judicial and commissioner findings highlighted the importance of evidence in establishing liability for duty evasion. en-us Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:55:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119524 The appellant, a mechanic at a vehicle manufacturer, was acquitted in a criminal case related to theft. The Central Excise Department imposed a penalty based on police statements, but the court found insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the theft. The duty liability for clandestine removal rested with the manufacturer, not the appellant. As the theft charge was not proven, the penalty was overturned, and the appeal was successful. The discrepancy between judicial and commissioner findings highlighted the importance of evidence in establishing liability for duty evasion. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119524