https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333844 The appellate authority rejected the Revenue's appeal in a case involving allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Commissioner (A) set aside the duty, interest, and penalty orders due to the lack of tangible corroborative evidence supporting the allegations. Discrepancies in balance sheet figures alone were deemed insufficient to prove clandestine activities, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence beyond mere suspicion. Legal precedents were cited to underscore the requirement for affirmative evidence in proving clandestine activities. The rejection of the appeal was based on the absence of further evidence supporting the allegations, leading to the conclusion that the appeal lacked substance. en-us Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:31:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333844 The appellate authority rejected the Revenue's appeal in a case involving allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Commissioner (A) set aside the duty, interest, and penalty orders due to the lack of tangible corroborative evidence supporting the allegations. Discrepancies in balance sheet figures alone were deemed insufficient to prove clandestine activities, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence beyond mere suspicion. Legal precedents were cited to underscore the requirement for affirmative evidence in proving clandestine activities. The rejection of the appeal was based on the absence of further evidence supporting the allegations, leading to the conclusion that the appeal lacked substance. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333844