https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46359 A duty demand and consequential penalties based on alleged clandestine procurement and suppressed production could not be sustained where the department's case rested mainly on an untested statement and disputed invoices. The Supreme Court noted that the supplier's partner was not examined for cross-examination, later contradicted the alleged statement in writing and on oath, and the remaining material did not independently establish unaccounted purchases or excess production. In these circumstances, the adverse inference of clandestine removal failed, and reliable evidence was held necessary before confirming duty liability and penalties. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Nov 2025 12:03:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46359 A duty demand and consequential penalties based on alleged clandestine procurement and suppressed production could not be sustained where the department's case rested mainly on an untested statement and disputed invoices. The Supreme Court noted that the supplier's partner was not examined for cross-examination, later contradicted the alleged statement in writing and on oath, and the remaining material did not independently establish unaccounted purchases or excess production. In these circumstances, the adverse inference of clandestine removal failed, and reliable evidence was held necessary before confirming duty liability and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46359