https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355471 Torn invoices and the authorised signatory's statement were treated as sufficient evidence of clandestine removal where they described a practice of issuing invoices, clearing goods, taking invoices back, tearing them, and reissuing fresh invoices under the same number, and the attempted retraction was not accepted because it was not timely brought to the Department's notice. However, duty could not be demanded again on goods already cleared on payment of duty, so that portion of the demand was set aside. A separate penalty on the partner of the partnership concern was also held unsustainable and annulled. en-us Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355471 Torn invoices and the authorised signatory's statement were treated as sufficient evidence of clandestine removal where they described a practice of issuing invoices, clearing goods, taking invoices back, tearing them, and reissuing fresh invoices under the same number, and the attempted retraction was not accepted because it was not timely brought to the Department's notice. However, duty could not be demanded again on goods already cleared on payment of duty, so that portion of the demand was set aside. A separate penalty on the partner of the partnership concern was also held unsustainable and annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355471