https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188769 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in the case involving M/s. SAI Iron (India) Ltd., rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to prove clandestine removal, stating that suspicion alone is insufficient to impose penalties and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB. The judgment reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue and without substantial evidence, punitive actions cannot be enforced. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Dec 2016 18:37:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188769 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in the case involving M/s. SAI Iron (India) Ltd., rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to prove clandestine removal, stating that suspicion alone is insufficient to impose penalties and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB. The judgment reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue and without substantial evidence, punitive actions cannot be enforced. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188769