https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360736 Penalty under Rule 209A was held unsustainable because the record did not prove clandestine removal of excisable goods. The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to produce reliable evidence of excess raw material use, excess electricity consumption, transport of unaccounted goods, or verified supplier and buyer records. The duplicate invoices were found to have been used for bill discounting, and the bank witnesses confirmed that no physical verification of goods had occurred. The evidence showed a financial fraud on the banks, not removal of goods from the factory, and there was no knowledge or reason to believe that goods were liable to confiscation. The penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360736 Penalty under Rule 209A was held unsustainable because the record did not prove clandestine removal of excisable goods. The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to produce reliable evidence of excess raw material use, excess electricity consumption, transport of unaccounted goods, or verified supplier and buyer records. The duplicate invoices were found to have been used for bill discounting, and the bank witnesses confirmed that no physical verification of goods had occurred. The evidence showed a financial fraud on the banks, not removal of goods from the factory, and there was no knowledge or reason to believe that goods were liable to confiscation. The penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360736