https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389704 A clandestine removal demand in central excise failed where the electronic printouts and data were not proved in compliance with mandatory rules for electronic evidence, making them unsafe to rely on. The search and seizure material was also rejected because the panchanamas were inconsistent, cross-examination of relied-upon witnesses was denied, and no independent corroboration such as raw material excess, power use, transport evidence, or cash flow evidence was produced. Alleged shortages based on eye estimation and average weight, without actual weighment or positive proof, were insufficient. The duty demand, interest, and penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Thu, 17 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2020 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389704 A clandestine removal demand in central excise failed where the electronic printouts and data were not proved in compliance with mandatory rules for electronic evidence, making them unsafe to rely on. The search and seizure material was also rejected because the panchanamas were inconsistent, cross-examination of relied-upon witnesses was denied, and no independent corroboration such as raw material excess, power use, transport evidence, or cash flow evidence was produced. Alleged shortages based on eye estimation and average weight, without actual weighment or positive proof, were insufficient. The duty demand, interest, and penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389704