https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2842 The Appellant challenged the order confirming the allegation of clandestine removal of 3.5 MT iron and steel product. The Appellate Tribunal noted the lack of evidence establishing the interconnected relation between the appellant and the sister concern, remanding the matter for further examination. Regarding the excess stock allegation of 486.845 MT, the Appellant failed to provide convincing evidence, and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the demand on the value of the excess goods found. The duty liability and penalty quantum were to be re-determined by the Lower Appellate Authority. The appeal was partly allowed, remanding the matter for further proceedings. en-us Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2842 The Appellant challenged the order confirming the allegation of clandestine removal of 3.5 MT iron and steel product. The Appellate Tribunal noted the lack of evidence establishing the interconnected relation between the appellant and the sister concern, remanding the matter for further examination. Regarding the excess stock allegation of 486.845 MT, the Appellant failed to provide convincing evidence, and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the demand on the value of the excess goods found. The duty liability and penalty quantum were to be re-determined by the Lower Appellate Authority. The appeal was partly allowed, remanding the matter for further proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2842