https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381477 The Tribunal allowed the appeals as the impugned order failed to establish clandestine removal of cement, emphasizing the necessity of tangible evidence. The lack of investigation into key aspects raised doubts on the allegations, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not involved in evasion of Central excise duty. The Tribunal set aside the order regarding the Director's liability due to insufficient evidence, providing consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and thorough investigations in excise duty cases to establish liability effectively. en-us Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:40:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381477 The Tribunal allowed the appeals as the impugned order failed to establish clandestine removal of cement, emphasizing the necessity of tangible evidence. The lack of investigation into key aspects raised doubts on the allegations, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not involved in evasion of Central excise duty. The Tribunal set aside the order regarding the Director's liability due to insufficient evidence, providing consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and thorough investigations in excise duty cases to establish liability effectively. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381477