https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32020 The Revenue's appeal was rejected by the Tribunal (T) as they failed to establish the case of illicit removal of goods. Insufficient evidence from loose chits and partner's statement led to the decision that the department did not meet the required standard of proof. Lack of stock-taking, unexplained contents of papers, inability to identify buyers or authors, and inadequate investigation contributed to the rejection of the appeal. The original decision dropping proceedings due to lack of evidence was upheld. en-us Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32020 The Revenue's appeal was rejected by the Tribunal (T) as they failed to establish the case of illicit removal of goods. Insufficient evidence from loose chits and partner's statement led to the decision that the department did not meet the required standard of proof. Lack of stock-taking, unexplained contents of papers, inability to identify buyers or authors, and inadequate investigation contributed to the rejection of the appeal. The original decision dropping proceedings due to lack of evidence was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32020