https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791594 Recovered lorry receipts from factory premises, together with an un-retracted partner's admission, were treated as sufficient evidence of clandestine removal; the extended period, duty demand, interest and penalty against the firm were sustained. The Tribunal rejected the challenge to valuation because the invoice-based method matched the admission and supporting records. A separate penalty on the partner under Rule 26(1) was set aside because no distinct, independently established role was shown once the firm had already been penalised, and duplicate penalty was held unwarranted in the absence of a separate attributable act. en-us Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2026 09:01:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791594 Recovered lorry receipts from factory premises, together with an un-retracted partner's admission, were treated as sufficient evidence of clandestine removal; the extended period, duty demand, interest and penalty against the firm were sustained. The Tribunal rejected the challenge to valuation because the invoice-based method matched the admission and supporting records. A separate penalty on the partner under Rule 26(1) was set aside because no distinct, independently established role was shown once the firm had already been penalised, and duplicate penalty was held unwarranted in the absence of a separate attributable act. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791594