https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764610 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside demands for clandestine removal based solely on differences between balance sheet and ER-1 returns. The tribunal held that revenue failed to provide positive evidence of clandestine manufacture or clearance, relying only on assumptions and presumptions. Citing precedents including R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal ruled that financial statement discrepancies without corroborative evidence cannot establish clandestine activities. The extended limitation period under Section 73(1) was wrongly invoked due to lack of evidence showing intent to evade duty. The demand and penalties were set aside. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jan 2025 16:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764610 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside demands for clandestine removal based solely on differences between balance sheet and ER-1 returns. The tribunal held that revenue failed to provide positive evidence of clandestine manufacture or clearance, relying only on assumptions and presumptions. Citing precedents including R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal ruled that financial statement discrepancies without corroborative evidence cannot establish clandestine activities. The extended limitation period under Section 73(1) was wrongly invoked due to lack of evidence showing intent to evade duty. The demand and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764610