https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346643 The appeal was allowed in a case involving a confirmed duty demand for alleged clandestine removal of goods. Despite a remand to establish charges following specific guidelines, the duty demand was confirmed without proper evidence linking the appellant to clandestine activities. The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence and a direct link to the accused party in proving such charges. As the Revenue failed to establish the clandestine activities by the appellant, the duty demand was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, highlighting the importance of evidentiary standards in such cases. en-us Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346643 The appeal was allowed in a case involving a confirmed duty demand for alleged clandestine removal of goods. Despite a remand to establish charges following specific guidelines, the duty demand was confirmed without proper evidence linking the appellant to clandestine activities. The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence and a direct link to the accused party in proving such charges. As the Revenue failed to establish the clandestine activities by the appellant, the duty demand was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, highlighting the importance of evidentiary standards in such cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346643