https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234259 Clandestine removal of excisable goods was not proved where the department found no stock discrepancy, seized no consignment in transit without duty documents, and relied mainly on a private notebook and an alleged modus operandi. The private entries were not independently corroborated by transporters, recipients, or other responsible persons, and the authenticity of the records and the capacity of the alleged authors remained unverified. In the absence of reliable supporting evidence, the inference rested on suspicion alone, and suspicion could not replace legal proof. The Tribunal's finding was upheld and the revenue appeal was rejected. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2013 17:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234259 Clandestine removal of excisable goods was not proved where the department found no stock discrepancy, seized no consignment in transit without duty documents, and relied mainly on a private notebook and an alleged modus operandi. The private entries were not independently corroborated by transporters, recipients, or other responsible persons, and the authenticity of the records and the capacity of the alleged authors remained unverified. In the absence of reliable supporting evidence, the inference rested on suspicion alone, and suspicion could not replace legal proof. The Tribunal's finding was upheld and the revenue appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234259