https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351217 The case involved the demand of Central Excise duty on alleged clandestine clearances of finished goods by the main appellant. The lower authorities confirmed the demand, but upon review, it was found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the conversion of raw materials or the clandestine clearances. The judgment emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in such cases. Reference to a precedent case highlighted the importance of additional evidence beyond mere admission statements. Consequently, the appeals were accepted, and the impugned order was set aside based on the application of established legal principles and precedents. en-us Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:22:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351217 The case involved the demand of Central Excise duty on alleged clandestine clearances of finished goods by the main appellant. The lower authorities confirmed the demand, but upon review, it was found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the conversion of raw materials or the clandestine clearances. The judgment emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in such cases. Reference to a precedent case highlighted the importance of additional evidence beyond mere admission statements. Consequently, the appeals were accepted, and the impugned order was set aside based on the application of established legal principles and precedents. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351217