https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384338 The tribunal found that the department failed to prove allegations of clandestine removal and undervaluation by M/s BFCL and M/s GFA. The computer printouts used as evidence did not meet legal requirements, rendering them inadmissible. Procedural lapses in electronic evidence handling were noted, and the burden of proof was not met with substantial evidence. As a result, the tribunal set aside the order and ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them relief. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:19:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384338 The tribunal found that the department failed to prove allegations of clandestine removal and undervaluation by M/s BFCL and M/s GFA. The computer printouts used as evidence did not meet legal requirements, rendering them inadmissible. Procedural lapses in electronic evidence handling were noted, and the burden of proof was not met with substantial evidence. As a result, the tribunal set aside the order and ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384338