https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351099 Liability for central excise duty had to be fastened on the actual manufacturer, and where the record showed that two separately registered firms carried on distinct production activities, a joint and several demand against the individual respondents was unsustainable. The reasoning also rejected the allegation of clandestine removal because the Revenue relied mainly on electronic printouts without effective enquiry or corroboration from buyers or other connected persons. In the absence of clinching evidence of raw material purchases, transport, sales, or flow back of funds, clandestine clearance was not proved. The common duty demand and penalties were therefore not maintainable against the individuals. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351099 Liability for central excise duty had to be fastened on the actual manufacturer, and where the record showed that two separately registered firms carried on distinct production activities, a joint and several demand against the individual respondents was unsustainable. The reasoning also rejected the allegation of clandestine removal because the Revenue relied mainly on electronic printouts without effective enquiry or corroboration from buyers or other connected persons. In the absence of clinching evidence of raw material purchases, transport, sales, or flow back of funds, clandestine clearance was not proved. The common duty demand and penalties were therefore not maintainable against the individuals. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351099