https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365744 Clandestine removal demands must be supported by reliable, specific and corroborated evidence; vague panchnamas, disputed private records and untested statements are insufficient, especially where cross-examination is denied despite request. The commentary also states that SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE cannot be denied on alleged use of another person's brand name unless ownership is proved with cogent material, and clearances cannot be clubbed without factual basis showing that separate units are merely a facade. It emphasises that the revenue bears the burden of proof on both clandestine removal and denial of exemption. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365744 Clandestine removal demands must be supported by reliable, specific and corroborated evidence; vague panchnamas, disputed private records and untested statements are insufficient, especially where cross-examination is denied despite request. The commentary also states that SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE cannot be denied on alleged use of another person's brand name unless ownership is proved with cogent material, and clearances cannot be clubbed without factual basis showing that separate units are merely a facade. It emphasises that the revenue bears the burden of proof on both clandestine removal and denial of exemption. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365744