https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366349 The Tribunal set aside duty demand and penalties imposed under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules due to lack of concrete evidence supporting allegations of suppressed production and clandestine clearance. The burden of proof was emphasized to lie with the revenue, requiring conclusive evidence rather than mere approximations or statements without corroboration. The Tribunal stressed the importance of thorough investigations and concrete proof, ultimately revoking penalties and allowing the appeals based on the unsubstantiated nature of the allegations. en-us Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Sep 2018 12:12:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366349 The Tribunal set aside duty demand and penalties imposed under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules due to lack of concrete evidence supporting allegations of suppressed production and clandestine clearance. The burden of proof was emphasized to lie with the revenue, requiring conclusive evidence rather than mere approximations or statements without corroboration. The Tribunal stressed the importance of thorough investigations and concrete proof, ultimately revoking penalties and allowing the appeals based on the unsubstantiated nature of the allegations. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366349