https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352113 The Tribunal found that the charge of clandestine removal of goods was not sustainable as there was no tangible proof from the Revenue that the goods were diverted to the domestic market. While a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed for procedural lapses in export documentation, the demand for duty and the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were set aside. The majority decision allowed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence from the Revenue to prove clandestine removal. The penalty of Rs. 5,000 for the procedural lapse was confirmed. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352113 The Tribunal found that the charge of clandestine removal of goods was not sustainable as there was no tangible proof from the Revenue that the goods were diverted to the domestic market. While a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed for procedural lapses in export documentation, the demand for duty and the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were set aside. The majority decision allowed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence from the Revenue to prove clandestine removal. The penalty of Rs. 5,000 for the procedural lapse was confirmed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352113