Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The case pertains to the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance of structural items/rolled products by the appellant. The revenue's case rested solely on private records of a third party (billet manufacturer) and statements of persons who were not cross-examined. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence of clandestine manufacture of the appellant's final product, no evidence of receipt of sale proceeds, and no evidence of transport of allegedly clandestinely removed goods. The third party's statements, which formed the root of the evidence, could not be relied upon as cross-examination was not allowed as mandated u/s 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, the Tribunal held that in the absence of cross-examination, the statements lose evidentiary value. Consequently, the revenue failed to establish its case of clandestine removal, and the demand was set aside by allowing the appeals.
The case pertains to the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance of structural items/rolled products by the appellant. The revenue's case rested solely on private records of a third party (billet manufacturer) and statements of persons who were not cross-examined. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence of clandestine manufacture of the appellant's final product, no evidence of receipt of sale proceeds, and no evidence of transport of allegedly clandestinely removed goods. The third party's statements, which formed the root of the evidence, could not be relied upon as cross-examination was not allowed as mandated u/s 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, the Tribunal held that in the absence of cross-examination, the statements lose evidentiary value. Consequently, the revenue failed to establish its case of clandestine removal, and the demand was set aside by allowing the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
