https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51418 A demand for clandestine manufacture and removal of pan masala/gutkha based on alleged receipt of supari was held unsustainable where the case rested on speculative inference, an equivocal statement, and shortage figures without corroborating documentary evidence, excess electricity data, recovery of records, or proof of clandestine clearances. The major duty demand, related interest, and connected penalties were deleted. Penalties under Rule 209A were also set aside because the record did not establish each appellant's conscious involvement or the statutory ingredients for penalty. The decision reiterates that clandestine excise demands require tangible, corroborative evidence, not assumptions or presumptions, and that penalty provisions must be supported by specific proof against each person proceeded against. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2025 19:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51418 A demand for clandestine manufacture and removal of pan masala/gutkha based on alleged receipt of supari was held unsustainable where the case rested on speculative inference, an equivocal statement, and shortage figures without corroborating documentary evidence, excess electricity data, recovery of records, or proof of clandestine clearances. The major duty demand, related interest, and connected penalties were deleted. Penalties under Rule 209A were also set aside because the record did not establish each appellant's conscious involvement or the statutory ingredients for penalty. The decision reiterates that clandestine excise demands require tangible, corroborative evidence, not assumptions or presumptions, and that penalty provisions must be supported by specific proof against each person proceeded against. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51418