https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190578 The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as the judge found that the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants were unjustified. The court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence to support the allegations of clandestine removal, noting that relying on presumptions without substantial proof was insufficient. Precedents were cited to underscore the necessity of reliable evidence in such cases. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside due to the failure to prove the allegations, highlighting the importance of substantial evidence in establishing charges of clandestine removal. en-us Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 19 Feb 2017 23:17:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190578 The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as the judge found that the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants were unjustified. The court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence to support the allegations of clandestine removal, noting that relying on presumptions without substantial proof was insufficient. Precedents were cited to underscore the necessity of reliable evidence in such cases. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside due to the failure to prove the allegations, highlighting the importance of substantial evidence in establishing charges of clandestine removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190578