https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166751 Allegations of clandestine production and removal of excisable goods under physical excise control required cogent proof, and the Department's burden was heavy because the factory was under continuous departmental scrutiny. The evidence was found insufficient: there was no seizure of the alleged goods, no buyer or payment trail evidence, and the duty computation was treated as arbitrary, including an unsupported annualisation method. With the primary allegation not proved to the required standard, the consequential challenge to the exemption notification and recomputation of duty also failed. The duty demand and penalty were therefore not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with relief to the assessee. en-us Fri, 25 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:11:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166751 Allegations of clandestine production and removal of excisable goods under physical excise control required cogent proof, and the Department's burden was heavy because the factory was under continuous departmental scrutiny. The evidence was found insufficient: there was no seizure of the alleged goods, no buyer or payment trail evidence, and the duty computation was treated as arbitrary, including an unsupported annualisation method. With the primary allegation not proved to the required standard, the consequential challenge to the exemption notification and recomputation of duty also failed. The duty demand and penalty were therefore not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with relief to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166751