https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345126 The judicial member ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the order-in-appeal for confiscation of goods and penalties under Central Excise Rules. The lack of concrete evidence linking the seized goods to the processor, along with evidence indicating ownership by other parties, discredited the department's claims. The burden of proof was emphasized, leading to the dismissal of confiscation, fines, and penalties. The decision highlighted the necessity of substantial evidence in proving allegations of clandestine removal, ultimately favoring the appellants and overturning the initial order. en-us Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345126 The judicial member ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the order-in-appeal for confiscation of goods and penalties under Central Excise Rules. The lack of concrete evidence linking the seized goods to the processor, along with evidence indicating ownership by other parties, discredited the department's claims. The burden of proof was emphasized, leading to the dismissal of confiscation, fines, and penalties. The decision highlighted the necessity of substantial evidence in proving allegations of clandestine removal, ultimately favoring the appellants and overturning the initial order. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345126