<?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>2022 (5) TMI 1164 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422904</link>
    <description>Procedural irregularities in panchnama proceedings, including defects in search conduct and repeated use of panch witnesses, did not by themselves exclude the seized material, but its reliability still had to be independently tested. Electronic evidence from a hard disk and related printouts required compliance with statutory safeguards for computer output, and without the necessary certificate and verification, the material could not sustain the case on its own. The statements relied upon were inconsistent and lacked corroboration on raw material, manufacture, clearance, buyers, and sale proceeds, so they were insufficient to prove clandestine removal. On the evidence as a whole, the duty demand and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2022 13:13:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=680142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1164 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422904</link>
      <description>Procedural irregularities in panchnama proceedings, including defects in search conduct and repeated use of panch witnesses, did not by themselves exclude the seized material, but its reliability still had to be independently tested. Electronic evidence from a hard disk and related printouts required compliance with statutory safeguards for computer output, and without the necessary certificate and verification, the material could not sustain the case on its own. The statements relied upon were inconsistent and lacked corroboration on raw material, manufacture, clearance, buyers, and sale proceeds, so they were insufficient to prove clandestine removal. On the evidence as a whole, the duty demand and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>