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

..... nces of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding 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 purchaser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence. 3. When the entire Order-in-Original is read, 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 writ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 76 (T); Emtex Synthetics Ltd. reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 170 (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 goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X