https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271269 The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and confirming the dropping of the majority of the excise duty demand on the respondents for alleged clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to prove clandestine removal, stating that mere probability is insufficient. The Revenue's reliance on weighment slips and power consumption data was deemed inadequate to establish duty liability. The burden of proof was held to rest with the Revenue, which failed to provide substantial evidence in this case. en-us Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271269 The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and confirming the dropping of the majority of the excise duty demand on the respondents for alleged clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to prove clandestine removal, stating that mere probability is insufficient. The Revenue's reliance on weighment slips and power consumption data was deemed inadequate to establish duty liability. The burden of proof was held to rest with the Revenue, which failed to provide substantial evidence in this case. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271269