https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54740 CESTAT held that clandestine removal demands cannot be sustained on rough notes, loose papers, stock shortages, or uncorroborated entries alone; the department must prove actual clearance with tangible supporting evidence such as buyers, statements, or documents, and the demands were set aside where proof was lacking. Modvat credit on imported watch movements was disallowed only where non-receipt, wrongful availing, or altered import descriptions were established; where shortage was explained or credit was reversed, denial was not justified. Penalties on companies were reduced in line with the limited proven evasion, while personal penalties under Rule 209A were cancelled because active abetment was not proved. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:53:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54740 CESTAT held that clandestine removal demands cannot be sustained on rough notes, loose papers, stock shortages, or uncorroborated entries alone; the department must prove actual clearance with tangible supporting evidence such as buyers, statements, or documents, and the demands were set aside where proof was lacking. Modvat credit on imported watch movements was disallowed only where non-receipt, wrongful availing, or altered import descriptions were established; where shortage was explained or credit was reversed, denial was not justified. Penalties on companies were reduced in line with the limited proven evasion, while personal penalties under Rule 209A were cancelled because active abetment was not proved. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54740