https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122473 The Tribunal found that the demand for duty was based on presumptions and assumptions, lacking concrete evidence. The Show Cause Notice and adjudication order were considered defective, with insufficient investigation. While irregularities in account maintenance were noted, they were deemed insufficient to prove clandestine removal. The appellants' appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected due to lack of sufficient evidence against the appellants. en-us Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:53:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122473 The Tribunal found that the demand for duty was based on presumptions and assumptions, lacking concrete evidence. The Show Cause Notice and adjudication order were considered defective, with insufficient investigation. While irregularities in account maintenance were noted, they were deemed insufficient to prove clandestine removal. The appellants' appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected due to lack of sufficient evidence against the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122473