https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791718 Clandestine removal is a serious excise allegation and cannot be sustained on the mere presence of goods in a godown. The Tribunal held that the demand failed because the record lacked tangible and corroborative evidence of raw material procurement, clandestine manufacture, actual removal of unaccounted finished goods, transport details, or sales to identifiable buyers. It also noted that the de novo order did not apply the principles governing clandestine removal as required by the earlier remand and Delhi High Court guidance. Accordingly, the central excise duty demand was unsustainable, and the consequential interest and penalty also could not survive. en-us Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791718 Clandestine removal is a serious excise allegation and cannot be sustained on the mere presence of goods in a godown. The Tribunal held that the demand failed because the record lacked tangible and corroborative evidence of raw material procurement, clandestine manufacture, actual removal of unaccounted finished goods, transport details, or sales to identifiable buyers. It also noted that the de novo order did not apply the principles governing clandestine removal as required by the earlier remand and Delhi High Court guidance. Accordingly, the central excise duty demand was unsustainable, and the consequential interest and penalty also could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791718