https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329701 In a clandestine removal dispute, the limitation objection was rejected because the allegation was supported by subsequent investigation into procurement of tobacco, packing material and sales to dealers, and the later notice could not be defeated merely by reference to the earlier factory detection. The duty demand was remanded for recomputation on a cum-duty basis, as the realised sale consideration had to be treated as inclusive of duty and the duty element worked out accordingly. The penalties on the proprietor and the authorized signatory were set aside because a separate penalty on the proprietor would amount to double penalisation, and no evidence established the signatory's involvement in the clandestine activity. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 15:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329701 In a clandestine removal dispute, the limitation objection was rejected because the allegation was supported by subsequent investigation into procurement of tobacco, packing material and sales to dealers, and the later notice could not be defeated merely by reference to the earlier factory detection. The duty demand was remanded for recomputation on a cum-duty basis, as the realised sale consideration had to be treated as inclusive of duty and the duty element worked out accordingly. The penalties on the proprietor and the authorized signatory were set aside because a separate penalty on the proprietor would amount to double penalisation, and no evidence established the signatory's involvement in the clandestine activity. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329701