<?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>2024 (1) TMI 82 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447683</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Chennai set aside duty demands and penalties in a clandestine removal case due to complete violation of natural justice principles. The department failed to comply with Section 36B while extracting electronic evidence from seized hard disks, rendering such evidence inadmissible. Third-party documents and statements were relied upon without proper examination under Section 9D, and requested cross-examination was denied. The burden of proof was not met as seized documents from third parties lacked corroboration and proper procedural compliance. A Rs. 50 lakh penalty was also set aside as no evidence showed personal gain by the salaried appellant or active involvement in alleged violations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 12:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 82 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447683</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Chennai set aside duty demands and penalties in a clandestine removal case due to complete violation of natural justice principles. The department failed to comply with Section 36B while extracting electronic evidence from seized hard disks, rendering such evidence inadmissible. Third-party documents and statements were relied upon without proper examination under Section 9D, and requested cross-examination was denied. The burden of proof was not met as seized documents from third parties lacked corroboration and proper procedural compliance. A Rs. 50 lakh penalty was also set aside as no evidence showed personal gain by the salaried appellant or active involvement in alleged violations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>