https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755819 Central excise duty demands based on alleged clandestine removal and undervaluation failed because the seized private notebooks and loose sheets were recovered from a third party, authorship was unproved, and the key statement was retracted without compliance with mandatory evidentiary procedure. In the absence of independent corroboration such as buyer, transporter, stock, raw material, power consumption, or sale-proceed evidence, the allegations were unsupported. As the duty demands were not sustained, the connected penalties on the company and its Managing Director, along with confiscation and redemption fine, also failed and were set aside. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jul 2024 08:06:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755819 Central excise duty demands based on alleged clandestine removal and undervaluation failed because the seized private notebooks and loose sheets were recovered from a third party, authorship was unproved, and the key statement was retracted without compliance with mandatory evidentiary procedure. In the absence of independent corroboration such as buyer, transporter, stock, raw material, power consumption, or sale-proceed evidence, the allegations were unsupported. As the duty demands were not sustained, the connected penalties on the company and its Managing Director, along with confiscation and redemption fine, also failed and were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755819