https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328 CESTAT, Bangalore held that a demand of central excise duty, with penalty and confiscation, for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of electronic chokes could not stand where the case rested on assumptions from raw-material purchases, bank withdrawals and estimated production. The record lacked positive corroboration such as excess electricity use, parallel invoices, buyer evidence or other material proving clandestine clearances, so the allegation failed. It further held that the extended limitation period was not invokable because the department did not establish suppression of production or clearance with intent to evade duty, despite returns and records being available. The order confirming duty and penalties was set aside, and consequential relief followed. en-us Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328 CESTAT, Bangalore held that a demand of central excise duty, with penalty and confiscation, for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of electronic chokes could not stand where the case rested on assumptions from raw-material purchases, bank withdrawals and estimated production. The record lacked positive corroboration such as excess electricity use, parallel invoices, buyer evidence or other material proving clandestine clearances, so the allegation failed. It further held that the extended limitation period was not invokable because the department did not establish suppression of production or clearance with intent to evade duty, despite returns and records being available. The order confirming duty and penalties was set aside, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328