https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48578 A revenue appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act could not succeed because the alleged clandestine removal turned on a pure question of fact, and the HC declined to re-appreciate evidence or disturb the Tribunal's finding that no material proved such removal. The two statements recorded under Section 14 were contradictory, and no additional evidence supported the department's case. On that factual basis, the Tribunal's deletion of penalty under Section 11AC was sustained, and the appeal failed on merits. en-us Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:46:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48578 A revenue appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act could not succeed because the alleged clandestine removal turned on a pure question of fact, and the HC declined to re-appreciate evidence or disturb the Tribunal's finding that no material proved such removal. The two statements recorded under Section 14 were contradictory, and no additional evidence supported the department's case. On that factual basis, the Tribunal's deletion of penalty under Section 11AC was sustained, and the appeal failed on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48578