https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181742 The Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding allegations of clandestine removal to evade Central Excise duty was rejected. The appellate authority emphasized the need for concrete evidence beyond statistical data to prove clandestine removal. Mere observations of excessive burning loss were deemed insufficient to establish the serious offense. The judgment highlighted the importance of thorough investigations and substantial evidence to substantiate duty evasion claims. The decision reaffirmed that in cases of revenue evasion, evidentiary standards must be robust to conclusively establish culpability. en-us Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Apr 2016 10:50:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181742 The Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding allegations of clandestine removal to evade Central Excise duty was rejected. The appellate authority emphasized the need for concrete evidence beyond statistical data to prove clandestine removal. Mere observations of excessive burning loss were deemed insufficient to establish the serious offense. The judgment highlighted the importance of thorough investigations and substantial evidence to substantiate duty evasion claims. The decision reaffirmed that in cases of revenue evasion, evidentiary standards must be robust to conclusively establish culpability. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181742