https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361955 Clandestine removal allegations against the assessee were rejected because the Revenue relied only on doubt about the job worker's rental arrangement and did not produce affirmative evidence of suppressed clearances. The absence of proof identifying the transporters or buyers of the alleged PET bottle removals meant suspicion alone could not establish that PET bottles were cleared as PET preforms without duty payment. On that evidentiary record, the demand of duty and associated penalties were not sustainable. en-us Fri, 01 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:09:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361955 Clandestine removal allegations against the assessee were rejected because the Revenue relied only on doubt about the job worker's rental arrangement and did not produce affirmative evidence of suppressed clearances. The absence of proof identifying the transporters or buyers of the alleged PET bottle removals meant suspicion alone could not establish that PET bottles were cleared as PET preforms without duty payment. On that evidentiary record, the demand of duty and associated penalties were not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361955