https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349580 The Tribunal set aside the decision of the first appellate authority, ruling in favor of the appellant due to insufficient evidence supporting clandestine removal of goods and inconsistencies in the Revenue's actions. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim of clearing the disputed quantity on duty payment was backed by RG1 entries, which went uncontested by the Revenue. Consequently, the allegation of clandestine removal was dismissed for lack of concrete proof, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:57:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349580 The Tribunal set aside the decision of the first appellate authority, ruling in favor of the appellant due to insufficient evidence supporting clandestine removal of goods and inconsistencies in the Revenue's actions. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim of clearing the disputed quantity on duty payment was backed by RG1 entries, which went uncontested by the Revenue. Consequently, the allegation of clandestine removal was dismissed for lack of concrete proof, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349580