https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299398 A charge of clandestine removal must be supported by substantial corroborative evidence and cannot rest only on selective raw-material consumption figures or intra-factory delivery challans used for movement within the factory. Where the record does not show excess consumption of all essential inputs or other indicators such as verified stock, labour, electricity, transport, or a complete chain of suppressed production, the duty demand cannot be sustained. The absence of prior permission for sending inputs to job workers under Rule 57F(2) is only a procedural lapse when the processed goods are received back and used in manufacture, so Modvat credit is not to be denied on that ground alone. Personal penalties also cannot survive once clandestine removal is not proved. en-us Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Dec 2021 18:51:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299398 A charge of clandestine removal must be supported by substantial corroborative evidence and cannot rest only on selective raw-material consumption figures or intra-factory delivery challans used for movement within the factory. Where the record does not show excess consumption of all essential inputs or other indicators such as verified stock, labour, electricity, transport, or a complete chain of suppressed production, the duty demand cannot be sustained. The absence of prior permission for sending inputs to job workers under Rule 57F(2) is only a procedural lapse when the processed goods are received back and used in manufacture, so Modvat credit is not to be denied on that ground alone. Personal penalties also cannot survive once clandestine removal is not proved. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299398