https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755820 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside central excise duty demand and penalties imposed on the company and its director. The tribunal held that clandestine removal charges must be proved with sufficient tangible evidence, which the department failed to provide. The department's case relied on disputed documents and assumptions rather than affirmative proof. The appellant's job work activities involved only printing services for established units, which did not constitute manufacturing under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Since clandestine removal was not established, no penalty was imposable on the director. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jul 2024 15:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755820 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside central excise duty demand and penalties imposed on the company and its director. The tribunal held that clandestine removal charges must be proved with sufficient tangible evidence, which the department failed to provide. The department's case relied on disputed documents and assumptions rather than affirmative proof. The appellant's job work activities involved only printing services for established units, which did not constitute manufacturing under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Since clandestine removal was not established, no penalty was imposable on the director. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755820