https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357776 The tribunal set aside the duty demand imposed on the appellant for alleged clandestine removal of goods, emphasizing the department's burden to prove such charges with concrete evidence. It found the adjudicating authority relied on assumptions rather than substantial proof, while the appellant presented documentation supporting their case. The tribunal granted relief to the appellant, stressing the necessity of clear and corroborative evidence for serious allegations like clandestine removal, cautioning against reliance solely on loose slips or unverified statements. en-us Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357776 The tribunal set aside the duty demand imposed on the appellant for alleged clandestine removal of goods, emphasizing the department's burden to prove such charges with concrete evidence. It found the adjudicating authority relied on assumptions rather than substantial proof, while the appellant presented documentation supporting their case. The tribunal granted relief to the appellant, stressing the necessity of clear and corroborative evidence for serious allegations like clandestine removal, cautioning against reliance solely on loose slips or unverified statements. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357776