https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345280 Clandestine removal was not established where the alleged mismatch between GP-1 records and HPCL material receipt reports was explained as reflecting different accounting bases, not unaccounted clearances. The Tribunal treated the retracted officer statement, recorded under coercive circumstances, as unreliable and insufficient on its own to prove evasion. In the absence of independent investigation showing receipt of unaccounted drums or payment outside the regular accounting system, the demand of duty, interest, and penalties could not be sustained. The job-work arrangement, duty reimbursement, and credit availment also made the alleged suppression commercially improbable and revenue neutral, so the assessee succeeded. en-us Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345280 Clandestine removal was not established where the alleged mismatch between GP-1 records and HPCL material receipt reports was explained as reflecting different accounting bases, not unaccounted clearances. The Tribunal treated the retracted officer statement, recorded under coercive circumstances, as unreliable and insufficient on its own to prove evasion. In the absence of independent investigation showing receipt of unaccounted drums or payment outside the regular accounting system, the demand of duty, interest, and penalties could not be sustained. The job-work arrangement, duty reimbursement, and credit availment also made the alleged suppression commercially improbable and revenue neutral, so the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345280