#Clandestine Removal

CESTAT Kolkata has ruled that revenue authorities cannot sustain excise duty demands for clandestine removal without tangible, corroborative evidence-reinforcing that mere suspicion or intelligence reports are insufficient under Section 11A. This sets a critical precedent for manufacturers facing speculative assessments, shifting the burden firmly onto the tax department to prove intent and action with concrete proof.

CESTAT Ahmedabad has ruled that revenue authorities cannot sustain excise duty demands based solely on handwritten notes or unverified challans. The burden lies squarely on the department to produce concrete, corroborated evidence of clandestine removal-rejecting speculative inferences from incomplete records. This sets a vital precedent for manufacturers facing arbitrary tax assessments under the Central Excise Act.

CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that a voluntary, unretracted confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act is sufficient to uphold a duty demand, eliminating the need for additional corroborative evidence. The decision reinforces the evidentiary weight of admissions in customs disputes, impacting importers and partners in similar proceedings.

The CETAT holds that allegations of clandestine removal under the Central Excise Act cannot be sustained on third-party records alone; corroborative evidence is mandatory.