https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50884 Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on private diary entries, loose papers or abbreviations alone unless supported by independent corroborative evidence such as proof of excess manufacture, removal, stock variation or raw material consumption. On the facts noted, the demand failed because the record itself acknowledged the absence of such corroboration and accepted the explanation for the entries. A separate undervaluation demand also failed where it was unsupported by cogent findings or reasoned analysis, and penalties on connected persons could not stand without specific findings of their individual role and culpability. The commentary thus reinforces that private records by themselves are insufficient to establish duty liability or penalty. en-us Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:43:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50884 Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on private diary entries, loose papers or abbreviations alone unless supported by independent corroborative evidence such as proof of excess manufacture, removal, stock variation or raw material consumption. On the facts noted, the demand failed because the record itself acknowledged the absence of such corroboration and accepted the explanation for the entries. A separate undervaluation demand also failed where it was unsupported by cogent findings or reasoned analysis, and penalties on connected persons could not stand without specific findings of their individual role and culpability. The commentary thus reinforces that private records by themselves are insufficient to establish duty liability or penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50884