https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342347 Where job-work documentation was found to be a sham, with stock shortages, post-facto invoices, absent transport records and corroborating admissions showing fabricated trails, the duty demands on alleged clearances were sustained as clandestine removal. The extended limitation period was also held invocable because the evidence showed suppression, misdeclaration and conscious collusion, so statutory intimations and returns did not defeat evasion findings. Penalties on the manufacturer and co-noticees were upheld as proportionate to the proved removal scheme, but the separate penalty under Rule 25 was set aside as duplicative. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 May 2017 12:08:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342347 Where job-work documentation was found to be a sham, with stock shortages, post-facto invoices, absent transport records and corroborating admissions showing fabricated trails, the duty demands on alleged clearances were sustained as clandestine removal. The extended limitation period was also held invocable because the evidence showed suppression, misdeclaration and conscious collusion, so statutory intimations and returns did not defeat evasion findings. Penalties on the manufacturer and co-noticees were upheld as proportionate to the proved removal scheme, but the separate penalty under Rule 25 was set aside as duplicative. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342347