2008 (7) TMI 1059

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the Revenue had failed to establish the charge of clandestine removal despite production of sufficient affirmative and corroborative evidence? (b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Revenue was required to conduct further verification from the buyer of the goods or purchasers when sufficient evidence are available in the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d, it becomes apparent that the portion of the Order-in-Original on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant-Revenue, is only a part of show cause notice which has since been replied by the respondent-assessee and the allegations made by Revenue have been denied. In fact, the Director concerned has categorically stated in writing that his statement was recorded under coercion. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 70 (T). The law on the point is well-settled that the charges of clandestine removal are required to be proved beyond doubt by production of sufficient and affirmative evidence and not on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. It is not understood as to why the Revenue has not conducted further verification from the buyers of the goods or the purchasers, when the details of the same were, acco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X