https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361295 Central excise duty demands for under-valuation and clandestine removal require independent corroboration of seized papers, computer printouts, and recorded statements. The adjudicating authority did not compare seized records with audited books as directed, and no buyer statements or other material established that the seized entries reflected suppressed sale consideration. The under-valuation demand was therefore unsustainable. The clandestine removal charge also lacked buyer evidence, transport records, or proof of sale proceeds, while relied-upon witnesses were not properly cross-examined in compliance with the statutory safeguard under Section 9D. The demands were set aside, with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361295 Central excise duty demands for under-valuation and clandestine removal require independent corroboration of seized papers, computer printouts, and recorded statements. The adjudicating authority did not compare seized records with audited books as directed, and no buyer statements or other material established that the seized entries reflected suppressed sale consideration. The under-valuation demand was therefore unsustainable. The clandestine removal charge also lacked buyer evidence, transport records, or proof of sale proceeds, while relied-upon witnesses were not properly cross-examined in compliance with the statutory safeguard under Section 9D. The demands were set aside, with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361295