https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272547 The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in favor of the respondent, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The case centered on the alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods, with both authorities emphasizing the necessity of tangible evidence beyond mere entries in records to substantiate such claims. The tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to provide concrete proof of clandestine removal, highlighting the importance of physical evidence or manufacturing indicators. Ultimately, the judgment favored the respondent due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegation of clandestine removal. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jun 2018 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272547 The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in favor of the respondent, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The case centered on the alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods, with both authorities emphasizing the necessity of tangible evidence beyond mere entries in records to substantiate such claims. The tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to provide concrete proof of clandestine removal, highlighting the importance of physical evidence or manufacturing indicators. Ultimately, the judgment favored the respondent due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegation of clandestine removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272547