https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170559 The appeals against the confirmation of duty demand and penalties for clandestine removal of goods were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI. The Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish clandestine removal, relying solely on the Income Tax assessment without corroborative proof such as procurement details or transportation records. The appellants' denial of clandestine removal, coupled with the lack of additional evidence, led the Member (J) to conclude that the demand was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed on 29-9-2010 by Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J). en-us Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:09:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170559 The appeals against the confirmation of duty demand and penalties for clandestine removal of goods were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI. The Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish clandestine removal, relying solely on the Income Tax assessment without corroborative proof such as procurement details or transportation records. The appellants' denial of clandestine removal, coupled with the lack of additional evidence, led the Member (J) to conclude that the demand was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed on 29-9-2010 by Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J). Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170559