https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52645 Central excise duty demand based on alleged clandestine removal failed because the Department did not produce cogent, tangible evidence such as extra raw material procurement, abnormal electricity use, labour deployment, stock discrepancies, transit interception, or duplicate invoices. Uncorroborated statements and packing slips/GRs were insufficient to prove actual clearance without duty. As the foundational allegation was not established, the consequential penalties on co-noticees under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also could not survive. Clandestine removal and derivative penal liability must rest on credible evidence, not suspicion, assumptions, or isolated unverified statements. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Jun 2024 17:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52645 Central excise duty demand based on alleged clandestine removal failed because the Department did not produce cogent, tangible evidence such as extra raw material procurement, abnormal electricity use, labour deployment, stock discrepancies, transit interception, or duplicate invoices. Uncorroborated statements and packing slips/GRs were insufficient to prove actual clearance without duty. As the foundational allegation was not established, the consequential penalties on co-noticees under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also could not survive. Clandestine removal and derivative penal liability must rest on credible evidence, not suspicion, assumptions, or isolated unverified statements. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52645