<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (8) TMI 1022 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384833</link>
    <description>Search and seizure proceedings were treated as unreliable where the panch witnesses were employees, the record showed inconsistencies about their presence, cross-examination of officers was denied, and the search continued beyond normal working hours. Electronic records copied to CDs and later relied on as printouts were held unusable without proper certification, authenticity proof, and compliance with safeguards for electronic evidence. Allegations of clandestine removal also failed because loose sheets, third-party papers, statements and shortage findings were not independently corroborated by concrete evidence such as raw material use, transport proof, or actual removal. On that basis, the duty demand and consequential penalties could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:37:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=584731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1022 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384833</link>
      <description>Search and seizure proceedings were treated as unreliable where the panch witnesses were employees, the record showed inconsistencies about their presence, cross-examination of officers was denied, and the search continued beyond normal working hours. Electronic records copied to CDs and later relied on as printouts were held unusable without proper certification, authenticity proof, and compliance with safeguards for electronic evidence. Allegations of clandestine removal also failed because loose sheets, third-party papers, statements and shortage findings were not independently corroborated by concrete evidence such as raw material use, transport proof, or actual removal. On that basis, the duty demand and consequential penalties could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384833</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>