Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demands and penalties against the Appellants, holding that the charge of clandestine manufacture/removal was not proved. The Tribunal found allegations rested on assumptions and presumptions without corroborative evidence: no buyer statements, no proved transportation, and no proper investigation linking third-party recoveries to the Appellants. Statements recorded during investigation lacked the Section 9D procedural safeguards and were therefore inadmissible; electronic print-outs were inadmissible for want of the requisite Section 36B certification; payment of duty during investigation did not constitute an admission. Stock shortfall based on eye-estimation was unreliable. Consequential penalties were quashed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
