https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410049 The appellant company was accused of clandestine removal of goods by clearing resins under fictitious bills through dummy firms. Despite evidence of money flowback, the court found insufficient proof of direct flowback to the appellant. Statements made under Section 14 were deemed inadmissible for witnesses not cross-examined. While some buyers negated original statements during cross-examination, documentary evidence supported the establishment of clandestine activities. The final order, following the Third Member's decision, dismissed the appeals and upheld the impugned order based on overwhelming documentary evidence and corroborative oral statements. en-us Wed, 14 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410049 The appellant company was accused of clandestine removal of goods by clearing resins under fictitious bills through dummy firms. Despite evidence of money flowback, the court found insufficient proof of direct flowback to the appellant. Statements made under Section 14 were deemed inadmissible for witnesses not cross-examined. While some buyers negated original statements during cross-examination, documentary evidence supported the establishment of clandestine activities. The final order, following the Third Member's decision, dismissed the appeals and upheld the impugned order based on overwhelming documentary evidence and corroborative oral statements. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410049