Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Clandestine removal of excisable goods alleged based on statements recorded from partners, employees, and buyers. Section 9D of Central Excise Act mandates cross-examination of witnesses before admitting statements as evidence against appellant. Adjudicating authority rejected request for cross-examination, rendering witness statements inadmissible. Reliance solely on loose papers/dispatch chits insufficient to establish clandestine removal. Discrepancies and contradictions in evidence noted. Separate penalty on partners of firm impermissible per precedent. Demand and penalties set aside due to lack of admissible evidence proving clandestine removal beyond doubt. Appeal allowed.
Clandestine removal of excisable goods alleged based on statements recorded from partners, employees, and buyers. Section 9D of Central Excise Act mandates cross-examination of witnesses before admitting statements as evidence against appellant. Adjudicating authority rejected request for cross-examination, rendering witness statements inadmissible. Reliance solely on loose papers/dispatch chits insufficient to establish clandestine removal. Discrepancies and contradictions in evidence noted. Separate penalty on partners of firm impermissible per precedent. Demand and penalties set aside due to lack of admissible evidence proving clandestine removal beyond doubt. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
