https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780833 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order in toto. The tribunal found the clandestine removal allegation unsustainable because recorded statements were contradictory, Section 9D procedures were not followed, corroborative evidence was not produced, and company control was under an Official Liquidator, making the clandestine removal finding unreliable; the confirmed demand of Rs.3,66,93,067/- was quashed. The tribunal also held that CENVAT credit passed by the head office to the sole manufacturing unit before ISD registration was a procedural irregularity not warranting denial of credit; the confirmed demand of Rs.5,59,84,382/- was quashed. en-us Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780833 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order in toto. The tribunal found the clandestine removal allegation unsustainable because recorded statements were contradictory, Section 9D procedures were not followed, corroborative evidence was not produced, and company control was under an Official Liquidator, making the clandestine removal finding unreliable; the confirmed demand of Rs.3,66,93,067/- was quashed. The tribunal also held that CENVAT credit passed by the head office to the sole manufacturing unit before ISD registration was a procedural irregularity not warranting denial of credit; the confirmed demand of Rs.5,59,84,382/- was quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780833