https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54816 The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of goods against a company operating as a 100% Export-Oriented Undertaking. The Central Excise department demanded duty and imposed penalties, invoking an extended period of limitation. The lower appellate authority overturned the penalties due to insufficient evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority's decision. en-us Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:32:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54816 The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of goods against a company operating as a 100% Export-Oriented Undertaking. The Central Excise department demanded duty and imposed penalties, invoking an extended period of limitation. The lower appellate authority overturned the penalties due to insufficient evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority's decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54816