https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350653 In a clandestine removal dispute under the Central Excise Act, the court held that the Revenue must prove unaccounted receipt of raw material, unaccounted production and secret clearance by cogent, positive and corroborated evidence. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting statements recorded in inquiry where several were retracted, contained material inconsistencies and were not shown to be voluntary, and in finding that the documents did not reliably prove receipt of goods or link demand drafts to alleged removals. In the absence of supporting evidence such as driver statements, stock discrepancies or other independent corroboration, the demand of duty, confiscation and penalties could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Nov 2018 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350653 In a clandestine removal dispute under the Central Excise Act, the court held that the Revenue must prove unaccounted receipt of raw material, unaccounted production and secret clearance by cogent, positive and corroborated evidence. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting statements recorded in inquiry where several were retracted, contained material inconsistencies and were not shown to be voluntary, and in finding that the documents did not reliably prove receipt of goods or link demand drafts to alleged removals. In the absence of supporting evidence such as driver statements, stock discrepancies or other independent corroboration, the demand of duty, confiscation and penalties could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350653