https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128276 The Revenue appealed against the setting aside of a demand and penalty based on alleged clandestine removal of goods. Discrepancies in 03 invoices were noted, with different handwriting on duplicate copies. The respondent explained the discrepancies and provided evidence of payments received through banks. The judge found consistent details in goods descriptions and payments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining consistent details and providing payment evidence in cases involving alleged clandestine removal of goods. en-us Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:55:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128276 The Revenue appealed against the setting aside of a demand and penalty based on alleged clandestine removal of goods. Discrepancies in 03 invoices were noted, with different handwriting on duplicate copies. The respondent explained the discrepancies and provided evidence of payments received through banks. The judge found consistent details in goods descriptions and payments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining consistent details and providing payment evidence in cases involving alleged clandestine removal of goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128276