https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345915 Clandestine removal and undervaluation in central excise cannot be sustained on private records alone unless supported by independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the ledgers and writing pads were not properly linked to the assessee, the main witness acknowledged entries relating to more than one concern, and no supporting indicators such as unaccounted raw material, abnormal electricity use, transport movement, cash flow, or labour deployment were proved. On that basis, the duty demand was set aside. Because the foundation for clandestine removal failed, confiscation of excess stock and penalties under Rules 25 and 26 also could not survive and were annulled. en-us Thu, 11 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345915 Clandestine removal and undervaluation in central excise cannot be sustained on private records alone unless supported by independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the ledgers and writing pads were not properly linked to the assessee, the main witness acknowledged entries relating to more than one concern, and no supporting indicators such as unaccounted raw material, abnormal electricity use, transport movement, cash flow, or labour deployment were proved. On that basis, the duty demand was set aside. Because the foundation for clandestine removal failed, confiscation of excess stock and penalties under Rules 25 and 26 also could not survive and were annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345915