https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238394 The Allahabad High Court dismissed the delay condonation application and appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court emphasized the significance of evidence and burden of proof in proving claims of clandestine activities, highlighting that mere admissions or circumstantial evidence are insufficient. The Tribunal's findings deemed the revenue's allegations of cement removal as exaggerated, with loose papers lacking connection to the appellant's business accounts. The judgment stressed the necessity of conclusive proof to establish guilt effectively, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the absence of substantial grounds for admission. en-us Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Sep 2014 16:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238394 The Allahabad High Court dismissed the delay condonation application and appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court emphasized the significance of evidence and burden of proof in proving claims of clandestine activities, highlighting that mere admissions or circumstantial evidence are insufficient. The Tribunal's findings deemed the revenue's allegations of cement removal as exaggerated, with loose papers lacking connection to the appellant's business accounts. The judgment stressed the necessity of conclusive proof to establish guilt effectively, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the absence of substantial grounds for admission. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238394