https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54685 Clandestine removal cannot be inferred from mere shortage; it must be supported by positive evidence, and the alleged duty demand on 594.25 kgs of cone yarn was therefore unsustainable. Removal of 4559.7 kgs of staple fibre roving ends to a job worker was held not to sustain demand under Rule 57F(6) because the goods had been processed and returned, the provision had run its course, and the transaction was revenue neutral; extended limitation was unavailable for want of intent to evade. Once both duty demands failed, the consequential penalty under Section 11AC also failed and was set aside. en-us Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:34:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54685 Clandestine removal cannot be inferred from mere shortage; it must be supported by positive evidence, and the alleged duty demand on 594.25 kgs of cone yarn was therefore unsustainable. Removal of 4559.7 kgs of staple fibre roving ends to a job worker was held not to sustain demand under Rule 57F(6) because the goods had been processed and returned, the provision had run its course, and the transaction was revenue neutral; extended limitation was unavailable for want of intent to evade. Once both duty demands failed, the consequential penalty under Section 11AC also failed and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54685