https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406231 The Tribunal held that the duty demand against the appellant, based solely on evidence from a third party's premises alleging clandestine removal, lacked corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the alleged guilt. The confirmation of demand on presumptive findings was deemed unsustainable, citing legal precedent. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was rejected due to the absence of evidence of suppression by the appellant. Insufficient evidence for confirming clandestine removal allegations led to the demand being wrongly confirmed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for tangible evidence and overturned the order, allowing the appeal based on the lack of concrete proof against the appellant. en-us Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:58:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406231 The Tribunal held that the duty demand against the appellant, based solely on evidence from a third party's premises alleging clandestine removal, lacked corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the alleged guilt. The confirmation of demand on presumptive findings was deemed unsustainable, citing legal precedent. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was rejected due to the absence of evidence of suppression by the appellant. Insufficient evidence for confirming clandestine removal allegations led to the demand being wrongly confirmed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for tangible evidence and overturned the order, allowing the appeal based on the lack of concrete proof against the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406231