https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389659 The Tribunal set aside the order confirming the demand for Central Excise duty and penalties imposed on the appellants. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish evidence of excess production of goods or procurement of raw materials, dispatch of goods, identification of customers, or consumption of power. Emphasizing the requirement for tangible proof of clandestine removal, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, concluding that the manufacture of the disputed quantity of goods was not proven. Consequently, all appeals were allowed, granting relief to the appellants. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389659 The Tribunal set aside the order confirming the demand for Central Excise duty and penalties imposed on the appellants. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish evidence of excess production of goods or procurement of raw materials, dispatch of goods, identification of customers, or consumption of power. Emphasizing the requirement for tangible proof of clandestine removal, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, concluding that the manufacture of the disputed quantity of goods was not proven. Consequently, all appeals were allowed, granting relief to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389659