https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331051 The case involved an appeal by Revenue against an order confirming a demand for payment against a company for allegedly clandestinely clearing goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the demand unsustainable due to lack of concrete evidence directly linking the appellant to the alleged actions. The denial of cross-examination of crucial witnesses weakened the case against the appellant, leading to the exclusion of certain evidence. The judgment emphasized the importance of fair hearing, prejudice, and the insufficiency of third-party evidence in sustaining allegations of clandestine removal. The appellate tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, citing various judicial pronouncements to support its decision. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:04:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331051 The case involved an appeal by Revenue against an order confirming a demand for payment against a company for allegedly clandestinely clearing goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the demand unsustainable due to lack of concrete evidence directly linking the appellant to the alleged actions. The denial of cross-examination of crucial witnesses weakened the case against the appellant, leading to the exclusion of certain evidence. The judgment emphasized the importance of fair hearing, prejudice, and the insufficiency of third-party evidence in sustaining allegations of clandestine removal. The appellate tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, citing various judicial pronouncements to support its decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331051