https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124713 Demand and penalty for alleged clandestine removal were found unsustainable where the case rested mainly on recovery of fabrics from a trader's premises and statements recorded there, without search of the appellant's factory or independent corroboration. The shop proprietor's statement was treated as that of a co-accused and was not inherently reliable, while the excise in-charge's statement did not match the proprietor's version. No direct evidence linked the disputed goods to the appellant's factory, and the Director or partner was not examined. In the absence of tangible, corroborative material, the benefit of doubt went to the appellant and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:15:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124713 Demand and penalty for alleged clandestine removal were found unsustainable where the case rested mainly on recovery of fabrics from a trader's premises and statements recorded there, without search of the appellant's factory or independent corroboration. The shop proprietor's statement was treated as that of a co-accused and was not inherently reliable, while the excise in-charge's statement did not match the proprietor's version. No direct evidence linked the disputed goods to the appellant's factory, and the Director or partner was not examined. In the absence of tangible, corroborative material, the benefit of doubt went to the appellant and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124713