https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777635 For pre-11.05.2001 DTA removals by a 100% EOU made without permission, duty was chargeable under the main charging provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944, not the proviso to Section 3(1). Allegations of clandestine removal required independent corroboration, such as buyer, transporter, or other tangible evidence; a statement or stock discrepancy alone was insufficient. Where the duty demand failed and no independent basis for confiscation remained, excess stock confiscation and derivative penalty could not be sustained. The commentary reflects that the impugned order was set aside and relief followed. en-us Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:19:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777635 For pre-11.05.2001 DTA removals by a 100% EOU made without permission, duty was chargeable under the main charging provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944, not the proviso to Section 3(1). Allegations of clandestine removal required independent corroboration, such as buyer, transporter, or other tangible evidence; a statement or stock discrepancy alone was insufficient. Where the duty demand failed and no independent basis for confiscation remained, excess stock confiscation and derivative penalty could not be sustained. The commentary reflects that the impugned order was set aside and relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777635