https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50506 The dominant issues were whether clandestine removal and wrongful availment of exemption were proved, and whether penalty under s. 11AC of the CEA could be imposed. The Tribunal held that allegations of clearance of cone yarn as hank yarn were founded solely on uncorroborated witness statements recorded behind the assessee's back; invoices described hank yarn, no unaccounted cones were found, and stock tallied with RG-1. Denial of cross-examination rendered such statements inadmissible and insufficient to establish clandestine removal; consequently, the duty demand and findings of suppression were unsustainable. Separately, s. 11AC was inapplicable as the alleged period preceded its insertion and it operates prospectively; the penalty was set aside. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50506 The dominant issues were whether clandestine removal and wrongful availment of exemption were proved, and whether penalty under s. 11AC of the CEA could be imposed. The Tribunal held that allegations of clearance of cone yarn as hank yarn were founded solely on uncorroborated witness statements recorded behind the assessee's back; invoices described hank yarn, no unaccounted cones were found, and stock tallied with RG-1. Denial of cross-examination rendered such statements inadmissible and insufficient to establish clandestine removal; consequently, the duty demand and findings of suppression were unsustainable. Separately, s. 11AC was inapplicable as the alleged period preceded its insertion and it operates prospectively; the penalty was set aside. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50506