https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363898 The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeals, as there was insufficient evidence beyond loose slips and statements to prove clandestine activities by the respondents. The burden of proof was on the revenue to establish clandestine removal with concrete evidence, which was lacking in this case. The judgment emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support such allegations, highlighting that mere suspicion or confessional statements without corroboration were inadequate to establish liability. en-us Tue, 22 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:44:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363898 The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeals, as there was insufficient evidence beyond loose slips and statements to prove clandestine activities by the respondents. The burden of proof was on the revenue to establish clandestine removal with concrete evidence, which was lacking in this case. The judgment emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support such allegations, highlighting that mere suspicion or confessional statements without corroboration were inadequate to establish liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363898