https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271507 A demand of central excise duty for alleged clandestine removal of cotton yarn failed because the record lacked tangible corroboration of actual manufacture, removal, transport, receipt of sale proceeds, or buyer-side evidence; suspicion based on stock position, machine availability, and record omissions was insufficient. The extended limitation period also could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed the nature of the goods and the exemption claimed in classification declarations, and no fresh incriminating material emerged after earlier proceedings. The demand and penalty were therefore held unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271507 A demand of central excise duty for alleged clandestine removal of cotton yarn failed because the record lacked tangible corroboration of actual manufacture, removal, transport, receipt of sale proceeds, or buyer-side evidence; suspicion based on stock position, machine availability, and record omissions was insufficient. The extended limitation period also could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed the nature of the goods and the exemption claimed in classification declarations, and no fresh incriminating material emerged after earlier proceedings. The demand and penalty were therefore held unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271507