https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191549 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, as the Department failed to provide sufficient evidence of clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty. The burden of proof was emphasized, with the Tribunal ruling that the charges based solely on a shortage of goods were insufficient without concrete evidence supporting the allegations. The decision underscored the necessity of meeting the burden of proof in duty demand cases involving allegations of clandestine activities. en-us Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:09:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191549 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, as the Department failed to provide sufficient evidence of clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty. The burden of proof was emphasized, with the Tribunal ruling that the charges based solely on a shortage of goods were insufficient without concrete evidence supporting the allegations. The decision underscored the necessity of meeting the burden of proof in duty demand cases involving allegations of clandestine activities. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191549