https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353890 The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the Member (Judicial) found that the Central Excise duty demand, based solely on a rough pad maintained by an individual without additional evidence, was not sufficient to prove clandestine removal of goods. The Department failed to provide corroborative evidence or conduct investigations with buyers to support their allegations. Without such evidence, the charges of clandestine removal could not be upheld. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the duty demand and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on 15.12.2017. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:41:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353890 The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the Member (Judicial) found that the Central Excise duty demand, based solely on a rough pad maintained by an individual without additional evidence, was not sufficient to prove clandestine removal of goods. The Department failed to provide corroborative evidence or conduct investigations with buyers to support their allegations. Without such evidence, the charges of clandestine removal could not be upheld. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the duty demand and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on 15.12.2017. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353890