https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327527 Clandestine removal was not proved because the evidence on record was factually inadequate: the witnesses permitted for selective cross-examination disowned their earlier statements, and little independent material remained beyond the USB printouts. On that factual basis, the demand of duty and penalty could not be sustained and the appeals were dismissed. The Court did not decide the legal issue on admissibility of computer printouts under Section 36B or the certification requirement for electronic evidence, leaving that question open for future consideration. en-us Thu, 03 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2016 01:25:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327527 Clandestine removal was not proved because the evidence on record was factually inadequate: the witnesses permitted for selective cross-examination disowned their earlier statements, and little independent material remained beyond the USB printouts. On that factual basis, the demand of duty and penalty could not be sustained and the appeals were dismissed. The Court did not decide the legal issue on admissibility of computer printouts under Section 36B or the certification requirement for electronic evidence, leaving that question open for future consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327527