https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449280 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that clandestine removal charges require positive and tangible evidence including raw material procurement, production conversion, clearances, buyer identification, and unaccounted cash receipts. Revenue failed to produce corroborative evidence beyond private record entries and witness statements. The adjudicating authority violated Section 9D procedures by denying cross-examination of witnesses without valid grounds, making their statements inadmissible. Since goods remained within the factory premises with no evidence of attempted clandestine removal, confiscation was unjustified. The appeal was allowed and impugned orders set aside. en-us Wed, 07 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Feb 2024 10:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449280 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that clandestine removal charges require positive and tangible evidence including raw material procurement, production conversion, clearances, buyer identification, and unaccounted cash receipts. Revenue failed to produce corroborative evidence beyond private record entries and witness statements. The adjudicating authority violated Section 9D procedures by denying cross-examination of witnesses without valid grounds, making their statements inadmissible. Since goods remained within the factory premises with no evidence of attempted clandestine removal, confiscation was unjustified. The appeal was allowed and impugned orders set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449280