https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209671 Shortage of imported POY, coupled with admission that part of the material was found at another unit and that removal of goods was acknowledged, supported a finding of clandestine removal. Statements and circumstantial evidence were treated as sufficient to link the concerned persons to the evasion, so the duty demand, interest and penalties were upheld. The objection that the show cause notice was time-barred also failed because the notice dated 13.03.2008 was held to fall within the relevant limitation period computed from the officers' visit on 24.06.2003. en-us Fri, 13 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209671 Shortage of imported POY, coupled with admission that part of the material was found at another unit and that removal of goods was acknowledged, supported a finding of clandestine removal. Statements and circumstantial evidence were treated as sufficient to link the concerned persons to the evasion, so the duty demand, interest and penalties were upheld. The objection that the show cause notice was time-barred also failed because the notice dated 13.03.2008 was held to fall within the relevant limitation period computed from the officers' visit on 24.06.2003. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209671