https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379236 Clandestine removal demands cannot rest on doubtful electronic records, unsealed devices, or statements denied cross-examination. The Tribunal held that search and seizure were procedurally unreliable because independent local witnesses were not properly associated. It further found that data from unsealed pen drives and printouts lacked assured authenticity and did not satisfy the conditions for electronic evidence. Statements recorded during investigation were also excluded because cross-examination was denied. With that material discarded, no legally sufficient corroboration remained to prove clandestine removal or shortages, so the duty demand and penalties were set aside. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:12:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379236 Clandestine removal demands cannot rest on doubtful electronic records, unsealed devices, or statements denied cross-examination. The Tribunal held that search and seizure were procedurally unreliable because independent local witnesses were not properly associated. It further found that data from unsealed pen drives and printouts lacked assured authenticity and did not satisfy the conditions for electronic evidence. Statements recorded during investigation were also excluded because cross-examination was denied. With that material discarded, no legally sufficient corroboration remained to prove clandestine removal or shortages, so the duty demand and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379236