https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358845 In a clandestine removal allegation, mere high electricity consumption and recovered invoices or vouchers were held insufficient without corroboration such as evidence of buyers, raw material procurement, transport, labour, or other proof of manufacture and clearance without duty payment. The explanation that electricity usage fluctuated because of furnace breakdowns and repeated restarting was accepted. The ruling reiterates that substantial corroborative evidence is required in clandestine removal cases and suspicion alone cannot sustain excise duty demand or penalties; the demand and penalties were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358845 In a clandestine removal allegation, mere high electricity consumption and recovered invoices or vouchers were held insufficient without corroboration such as evidence of buyers, raw material procurement, transport, labour, or other proof of manufacture and clearance without duty payment. The explanation that electricity usage fluctuated because of furnace breakdowns and repeated restarting was accepted. The ruling reiterates that substantial corroborative evidence is required in clandestine removal cases and suspicion alone cannot sustain excise duty demand or penalties; the demand and penalties were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358845