https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351416 Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on the basis of private registers alone. The demand and penalties failed because the seized entries were not corroborated by independent evidence such as proof of unaccounted production, clearance, transport, buyer confirmation, or fictitious billing. The absence of contemporaneous supporting material, including after remand and despite the lapse of time, meant the Department did not establish the charge to the required standard. On that basis, the duty demand and penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Nov 2017 06:28:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351416 Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on the basis of private registers alone. The demand and penalties failed because the seized entries were not corroborated by independent evidence such as proof of unaccounted production, clearance, transport, buyer confirmation, or fictitious billing. The absence of contemporaneous supporting material, including after remand and despite the lapse of time, meant the Department did not establish the charge to the required standard. On that basis, the duty demand and penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351416