https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362423 The Tribunal set aside the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalty on the main appellant and the penalty on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment emphasized the lack of concrete evidence and corroborative proof in allegations of clandestine removal based on third-party documents. Findings of shortages in stock alone were deemed insufficient to prove clandestine removal without evidence of manufacturing, transportation, and buyer identification. Consequently, the demands against the manufacturing unit were dismissed, and the penalty on the Director was revoked, with both appeals allowed with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:32:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362423 The Tribunal set aside the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalty on the main appellant and the penalty on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment emphasized the lack of concrete evidence and corroborative proof in allegations of clandestine removal based on third-party documents. Findings of shortages in stock alone were deemed insufficient to prove clandestine removal without evidence of manufacturing, transportation, and buyer identification. Consequently, the demands against the manufacturing unit were dismissed, and the penalty on the Director was revoked, with both appeals allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362423