https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392871 Statements recorded during investigation under Section 14 cannot sustain a clandestine removal demand unless the statutory procedure under Section 9D for admitting and relying on such evidence is followed, and that requirement is treated as mandatory. Loose sheets and computer printouts, by themselves, are insufficient unless their authorship and evidentiary value are established through independent corroboration. In the absence of supporting proof such as raw material purchases, electricity consumption, transport movements, sale proceeds, or other clinching circumstances, the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal fails. Mere deposit of money during investigation is not an admission of liability. The department's burden to prove the demand by reliable evidence was not discharged. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 10:59:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392871 Statements recorded during investigation under Section 14 cannot sustain a clandestine removal demand unless the statutory procedure under Section 9D for admitting and relying on such evidence is followed, and that requirement is treated as mandatory. Loose sheets and computer printouts, by themselves, are insufficient unless their authorship and evidentiary value are established through independent corroboration. In the absence of supporting proof such as raw material purchases, electricity consumption, transport movements, sale proceeds, or other clinching circumstances, the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal fails. Mere deposit of money during investigation is not an admission of liability. The department's burden to prove the demand by reliable evidence was not discharged. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392871