Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the Appellant-Company and set aside the impugned order confirming duty demand for alleged clandestine removal of sponge iron. It held that proceedings were vitiated as they were founded solely on statements recorded under s.14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.9D, rendering such statements devoid of evidentiary value. Further, computer printouts seized from a third party, lacking certification as mandated under the Evidence Act and s.36B of the Central Excise Act, were held inadmissible. CESTAT also noted the complete absence of corroborative evidence such as stock discrepancy, transport documents, or statements of vehicle owners/drivers. Consequently, the demand, interest, and penalties were held unsustainable in law.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the Appellant-Company and set aside the impugned order confirming duty demand for alleged clandestine removal of sponge iron. It held that proceedings were vitiated as they were founded solely on statements recorded under s.14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.9D, rendering such statements devoid of evidentiary value. Further, computer printouts seized from a third party, lacking certification as mandated under the Evidence Act and s.36B of the Central Excise Act, were held inadmissible. CESTAT also noted the complete absence of corroborative evidence such as stock discrepancy, transport documents, or statements of vehicle owners/drivers. Consequently, the demand, interest, and penalties were held unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
