https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241022 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to substantiate allegations of clandestine removal of goods without duty payment. The burden of proof was placed on the Department, and the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a specified amount to stay the recovery of remaining dues pending appeal, stressing the importance of corroborative evidence in cases of duty evasion. en-us Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:33:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241022 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to substantiate allegations of clandestine removal of goods without duty payment. The burden of proof was placed on the Department, and the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a specified amount to stay the recovery of remaining dues pending appeal, stressing the importance of corroborative evidence in cases of duty evasion. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241022