https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393440 The appeal was allowed as the court found that the Revenue failed to provide substantial positive evidence beyond record discrepancies to prove clandestine removal of goods, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence. The court highlighted that discrepancies in records alone were insufficient to establish charges of clandestine removal. Therefore, the demand for duty evasion and penalty imposition was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief for the appellants. en-us Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2020 07:52:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393440 The appeal was allowed as the court found that the Revenue failed to provide substantial positive evidence beyond record discrepancies to prove clandestine removal of goods, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence. The court highlighted that discrepancies in records alone were insufficient to establish charges of clandestine removal. Therefore, the demand for duty evasion and penalty imposition was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief for the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393440