https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776306 The CESTAT held that the Department failed to prove clandestine removal of goods, as allegations were based on assumptions without concrete evidence such as money trail, raw material procurement, or reliable documentary proof. Statements under Section 70 lacked corroboration, and dispatch slips had no evidentiary value due to unidentified authorship. The transport company was not liable for penalty under Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017, as mens rea was not established, and no conscious involvement in duty evasion was proven. Consequently, penalties imposed were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:20:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776306 The CESTAT held that the Department failed to prove clandestine removal of goods, as allegations were based on assumptions without concrete evidence such as money trail, raw material procurement, or reliable documentary proof. Statements under Section 70 lacked corroboration, and dispatch slips had no evidentiary value due to unidentified authorship. The transport company was not liable for penalty under Rule 29 of the Central Excise Rules, 2017, as mens rea was not established, and no conscious involvement in duty evasion was proven. Consequently, penalties imposed were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776306