https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379735 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case involving alleged clandestine removal of goods under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to support such charges, noting the absence of physical stock taking and panchanama. The appeal was dismissed without costs as the Court found the Tribunal's ruling to be a reasonable interpretation of the facts, highlighting the requirement for substantial evidence to substantiate claims of clandestine removal. en-us Fri, 26 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2019 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379735 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case involving alleged clandestine removal of goods under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to support such charges, noting the absence of physical stock taking and panchanama. The appeal was dismissed without costs as the Court found the Tribunal's ruling to be a reasonable interpretation of the facts, highlighting the requirement for substantial evidence to substantiate claims of clandestine removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379735