https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51544 Clandestine removal must be proved by strict, direct, and corroborated evidence; unauthenticated register entries or assumptions are insufficient, so a demand and penalty cannot rest on an unproven allegation. Amounts deposited during investigation may be treated as refundable deposits, not duty paid under adjudication, where no collection from buyers is shown. In that situation, the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply, and the ordinary limitation for statutory refund claims is also inapplicable. The result described is that the excess demand fails and refund-related relief follows for the balance amount. en-us Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:12:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51544 Clandestine removal must be proved by strict, direct, and corroborated evidence; unauthenticated register entries or assumptions are insufficient, so a demand and penalty cannot rest on an unproven allegation. Amounts deposited during investigation may be treated as refundable deposits, not duty paid under adjudication, where no collection from buyers is shown. In that situation, the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply, and the ordinary limitation for statutory refund claims is also inapplicable. The result described is that the excess demand fails and refund-related relief follows for the balance amount. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51544