https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217047 Clandestine removal cannot be established merely from a discrepancy between finished goods declared and entries in the RG-1 register. The department must prove the allegation with concrete corroborative evidence such as movement of goods, receipt of sale consideration, or an inculpatory statement, and the burden remains on the department. Here, the discrepancy related to a stock declaration as on 1-4-2003, and no independent evidence supported removal outside the records. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217047 Clandestine removal cannot be established merely from a discrepancy between finished goods declared and entries in the RG-1 register. The department must prove the allegation with concrete corroborative evidence such as movement of goods, receipt of sale consideration, or an inculpatory statement, and the burden remains on the department. Here, the discrepancy related to a stock declaration as on 1-4-2003, and no independent evidence supported removal outside the records. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217047