https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53638 Clandestine removal demands based on witness statements cannot stand where requested cross-examination is denied and no independent corroboration exists; the 1998-99 duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing. A joint demand cannot be sustained against two persons for the same goods; the 1999-2000 duty demand and penalty were set aside, but the redemption fine on seized yarn was upheld because the goods had been removed without duty and provisionally released on bond. Penalties under Rule 209A require proof of knowing physical dealing with liable goods, so the penalties on the dealers were set aside, while the vehicle fine was sustained. en-us Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:49:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53638 Clandestine removal demands based on witness statements cannot stand where requested cross-examination is denied and no independent corroboration exists; the 1998-99 duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing. A joint demand cannot be sustained against two persons for the same goods; the 1999-2000 duty demand and penalty were set aside, but the redemption fine on seized yarn was upheld because the goods had been removed without duty and provisionally released on bond. Penalties under Rule 209A require proof of knowing physical dealing with liable goods, so the penalties on the dealers were set aside, while the vehicle fine was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53638