https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330299 The Tribunal's finding that clandestine removal and suppression of duty liability were not proved was upheld because it had evaluated the seized notebooks, witness statements and surrounding investigation, and found the revenue evidence unreliable after cross-examination and lacking corroboration such as a money trail, transport proof or other supporting circumstances. The High Court treated these conclusions as findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence and held that the revenue had not shown any ignored material or perversity. No substantial question of law arose for interference, so the Tribunal's conclusion stood. en-us Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330299 The Tribunal's finding that clandestine removal and suppression of duty liability were not proved was upheld because it had evaluated the seized notebooks, witness statements and surrounding investigation, and found the revenue evidence unreliable after cross-examination and lacking corroboration such as a money trail, transport proof or other supporting circumstances. The High Court treated these conclusions as findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence and held that the revenue had not shown any ignored material or perversity. No substantial question of law arose for interference, so the Tribunal's conclusion stood. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330299