https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367756 A duty demand for alleged clandestine removal cannot rest on disputed private records and untested witness statements when cross-examination is allowed but the witnesses are not produced. The Monthly Dispatch Summary Details were repudiated by employee affidavits as forged, and no corroborative material supported the alleged clearances; the demand based on those records was therefore not sustainable. Parallel invoices and seized material also did not prove clandestine removal because the Department produced no independent evidence of raw material procurement, transport, buyers, sale proceeds, or manufacturing capacity. In the absence of positive corroboration, the related demand and penalties could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Sep 2018 08:46:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367756 A duty demand for alleged clandestine removal cannot rest on disputed private records and untested witness statements when cross-examination is allowed but the witnesses are not produced. The Monthly Dispatch Summary Details were repudiated by employee affidavits as forged, and no corroborative material supported the alleged clearances; the demand based on those records was therefore not sustainable. Parallel invoices and seized material also did not prove clandestine removal because the Department produced no independent evidence of raw material procurement, transport, buyers, sale proceeds, or manufacturing capacity. In the absence of positive corroboration, the related demand and penalties could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367756