https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462396 In clandestine removal matters, penalties were treated as unsustainable when imposed on a corporate entity or firm as such, while penalties on an individual or proprietorship concern could still be maintained under the excise framework, including Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The duty demands were remanded for de novo adjudication because the record showed inadequate corroboration and defects in the fact-finding process, including no physical verification, cross-examination, buyer verification, or inquiry into raw material and electricity consumption. The remand was also directed to secure compliance with natural justice and allow additional evidence if needed. en-us Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:54:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462396 In clandestine removal matters, penalties were treated as unsustainable when imposed on a corporate entity or firm as such, while penalties on an individual or proprietorship concern could still be maintained under the excise framework, including Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The duty demands were remanded for de novo adjudication because the record showed inadequate corroboration and defects in the fact-finding process, including no physical verification, cross-examination, buyer verification, or inquiry into raw material and electricity consumption. The remand was also directed to secure compliance with natural justice and allow additional evidence if needed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462396