https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349894 Clandestine removal was proved through seized records, physical stock discrepancies, unaccounted purchases and clearances, repeated use of invoice numbers, and corroborative employee and management statements; the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and duty demand was restored. The limitation objection also failed because the evidence established fraud, suppression and wilful evasion, justifying invocation of the extended period from the date of discovery. On that basis, the appellate relief granted to the respondent was reversed, with consequential penalty and interest revived. en-us Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349894 Clandestine removal was proved through seized records, physical stock discrepancies, unaccounted purchases and clearances, repeated use of invoice numbers, and corroborative employee and management statements; the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and duty demand was restored. The limitation objection also failed because the evidence established fraud, suppression and wilful evasion, justifying invocation of the extended period from the date of discovery. On that basis, the appellate relief granted to the respondent was reversed, with consequential penalty and interest revived. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349894