https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377881 In an appeal under section 35G, concurrent factual findings on alleged clandestine removal supported by statements and recovered records were not reappreciated, and the duty demand was left undisturbed because no substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal, however, exceeded its jurisdiction by restoring a higher penalty when the Revenue had not challenged the first appellate reduction; the assessee's appeal could not be used to enlarge the penalty. The restoration of the higher penalty was therefore set aside, and the penalty on the firm was deleted, while the duty demand remained confirmed. en-us Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2019 12:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377881 In an appeal under section 35G, concurrent factual findings on alleged clandestine removal supported by statements and recovered records were not reappreciated, and the duty demand was left undisturbed because no substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal, however, exceeded its jurisdiction by restoring a higher penalty when the Revenue had not challenged the first appellate reduction; the assessee's appeal could not be used to enlarge the penalty. The restoration of the higher penalty was therefore set aside, and the penalty on the firm was deleted, while the duty demand remained confirmed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377881