https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385876 The Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant due to lack of evidence supporting the duty demand and the premature nature of the demand in the absence of a rejected remission application. The Tribunal emphasized the serious nature of the charge of clandestine removal and concluded that the allegation could not be sustained without positive evidence, such as statements from buyers or transporters. Contradictory findings between the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority regarding the fire incident indicated a lack of diligence in the proceedings. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Sep 2019 11:24:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385876 The Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant due to lack of evidence supporting the duty demand and the premature nature of the demand in the absence of a rejected remission application. The Tribunal emphasized the serious nature of the charge of clandestine removal and concluded that the allegation could not be sustained without positive evidence, such as statements from buyers or transporters. Contradictory findings between the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority regarding the fire incident indicated a lack of diligence in the proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385876