https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376951 Clandestine removal cases may be proved through cogent circumstantial evidence, including private records, dealer statements, and surrounding facts, where direct evidence is rarely available. The text states that such evidence was sufficient to treat cooperative societies as sham intermediaries and identify the assessee as the real manufacturer and clearer, so the duty demand was upheld. It further states that fraud and suppression through bogus entities justified invocation of the extended limitation period, while cum-duty benefit was denied because the clearances formed part of a deliberate evasion scheme. Penalties on the assessee and the director were sustained on the basis of the same fraudulent conduct. en-us Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Mar 2020 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376951 Clandestine removal cases may be proved through cogent circumstantial evidence, including private records, dealer statements, and surrounding facts, where direct evidence is rarely available. The text states that such evidence was sufficient to treat cooperative societies as sham intermediaries and identify the assessee as the real manufacturer and clearer, so the duty demand was upheld. It further states that fraud and suppression through bogus entities justified invocation of the extended limitation period, while cum-duty benefit was denied because the clearances formed part of a deliberate evasion scheme. Penalties on the assessee and the director were sustained on the basis of the same fraudulent conduct. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376951