https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791375 Clandestine manufacture and removal in excise matters must rest on positive, corroborative evidence; receipt of one raw material and a theoretical consumption formula are insufficient to prove manufacture and clearance of Gutka. The remand directions were not properly implemented because the adjudicating authority failed to confine verification to lorry receipts standing in the appellant's name and unjustifiably refused inspection of originals. As the duty demand based on clandestine removal was unsustainable, the penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 also could not survive. en-us Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2026 09:50:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791375 Clandestine manufacture and removal in excise matters must rest on positive, corroborative evidence; receipt of one raw material and a theoretical consumption formula are insufficient to prove manufacture and clearance of Gutka. The remand directions were not properly implemented because the adjudicating authority failed to confine verification to lorry receipts standing in the appellant's name and unjustifiably refused inspection of originals. As the duty demand based on clandestine removal was unsustainable, the penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 also could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791375