Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalty against the appellant could be sustained on the basis of third party documents and uncorroborated material, in the absence of cogent evidence of clandestine removal.
Analysis: The demand was founded on documents and computer data recovered in the course of proceedings against the main noticee, but the earlier Division Bench decision arising from the same show cause notice had already held that the search and seizure were conducted in violation of the requirements of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 18 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that the computer data was relied upon without compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was further held that shortage had been inferred only by eye estimation and average weight, and that there was no independent corroboration for the loose documents or third party records. In such circumstances, third party material without clinching corroboration could not establish clandestine manufacture and removal.
Conclusion: The Department failed to prove the allegations against the appellant, and the demand of duty, interest, and penalty was unsustainable.