https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411681 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of excise duty for alleged clandestine removal due to lack of substantive evidence. The Appellant successfully argued that the demand was unsupported by concrete proof and was substantially time-barred. The Tribunal emphasized the Revenue's failure to provide corroborative evidence, highlighting the necessity of proof for establishing liability. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, emphasizing the insufficiency of assumptions and presumptions in proving clandestine removal, ultimately nullifying the demand, penalties, and interest. en-us Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Sep 2021 08:58:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411681 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of excise duty for alleged clandestine removal due to lack of substantive evidence. The Appellant successfully argued that the demand was unsupported by concrete proof and was substantially time-barred. The Tribunal emphasized the Revenue's failure to provide corroborative evidence, highlighting the necessity of proof for establishing liability. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, emphasizing the insufficiency of assumptions and presumptions in proving clandestine removal, ultimately nullifying the demand, penalties, and interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411681