https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351055 The Tribunal remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after observations made in a previous round of litigation. The appellant faced allegations of clandestine removal based on shortages of raw materials and finished goods, challenging the stock-taking method and valuation. Despite confirmation of demand and penalties, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced penalties due to lack of evidence. In the remand proceedings, duty, interest, and penalties were reduced. The Tribunal found no positive evidence of clandestine removal, deemed the show cause notice unsustainable, and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351055 The Tribunal remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after observations made in a previous round of litigation. The appellant faced allegations of clandestine removal based on shortages of raw materials and finished goods, challenging the stock-taking method and valuation. Despite confirmation of demand and penalties, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced penalties due to lack of evidence. In the remand proceedings, duty, interest, and penalties were reduced. The Tribunal found no positive evidence of clandestine removal, deemed the show cause notice unsustainable, and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351055