https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390055 Electronic printouts from a pen drive could not sustain a clandestine removal demand because the seizure record was inconsistent, the Section 36B requirements for electronic evidence were not met, and cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied on was denied; without independent corroboration such as stock variation, transport evidence, or flow-back of funds, the demand failed. Confiscation of branded goods also failed because the factory was shown to be in a rural area and the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE applied, making the brand-name objection insufficient on the facts. Penalties on the unit and co-appellants fell with the underlying demands and confiscation. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390055 Electronic printouts from a pen drive could not sustain a clandestine removal demand because the seizure record was inconsistent, the Section 36B requirements for electronic evidence were not met, and cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied on was denied; without independent corroboration such as stock variation, transport evidence, or flow-back of funds, the demand failed. Confiscation of branded goods also failed because the factory was shown to be in a rural area and the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE applied, making the brand-name objection insufficient on the facts. Penalties on the unit and co-appellants fell with the underlying demands and confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390055