https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378890 Demand for central excise duty and equal penalty based on loose sheets, third-party records and a retracted statement was treated as unsustainable because the documents were seized from a third party, the author of the private records was unidentified, and no independent proof linked them to the assessee. Clandestine manufacture and removal also failed for want of positive evidence of excess raw material consumption, abnormal power use, unaccounted transport, identified buyers or receipt of sale proceeds; stock and statutory records tallied. The principle applied was that suspicion cannot replace proof, and clandestine removal must be established by credible, corroborative evidence. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Apr 2019 09:08:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378890 Demand for central excise duty and equal penalty based on loose sheets, third-party records and a retracted statement was treated as unsustainable because the documents were seized from a third party, the author of the private records was unidentified, and no independent proof linked them to the assessee. Clandestine manufacture and removal also failed for want of positive evidence of excess raw material consumption, abnormal power use, unaccounted transport, identified buyers or receipt of sale proceeds; stock and statutory records tallied. The principle applied was that suspicion cannot replace proof, and clandestine removal must be established by credible, corroborative evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378890