https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359531 The Revenue's appeal against the order setting aside duty demand, interest, and penalties was rejected. The appellate authority found that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of clandestine removal of goods by the respondent. The authority emphasized the lack of documentary evidence and corroborative proof, concluding that duty cannot be demanded solely based on retracted statements. Relying on established legal principles and precedents, the authority upheld the initial decision, deeming it legally sound and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The respondent's cross objection was also disposed of during the proceedings. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2018 06:21:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359531 The Revenue's appeal against the order setting aside duty demand, interest, and penalties was rejected. The appellate authority found that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of clandestine removal of goods by the respondent. The authority emphasized the lack of documentary evidence and corroborative proof, concluding that duty cannot be demanded solely based on retracted statements. Relying on established legal principles and precedents, the authority upheld the initial decision, deeming it legally sound and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The respondent's cross objection was also disposed of during the proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359531