https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786324 Clandestine removal demands must be proved by a complete, corroborated evidentiary chain showing procurement of raw materials, manufacture, clearance, transport, buyers and consideration; uncertified electronic records, uncorroborated private papers, retracted statements and electricity-based extrapolation were insufficient, so the excise duty demand failed. The Department also failed to show that the disputed CENVAT credit invoices did not relate to received inputs or that the credit was fraudulent, so the dropped credit demand and related penalties were upheld. Penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 could not survive once clandestine removal was not established, and were set aside. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 09:36:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786324 Clandestine removal demands must be proved by a complete, corroborated evidentiary chain showing procurement of raw materials, manufacture, clearance, transport, buyers and consideration; uncertified electronic records, uncorroborated private papers, retracted statements and electricity-based extrapolation were insufficient, so the excise duty demand failed. The Department also failed to show that the disputed CENVAT credit invoices did not relate to received inputs or that the credit was fraudulent, so the dropped credit demand and related penalties were upheld. Penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 could not survive once clandestine removal was not established, and were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786324