https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448234 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that demand for clandestine removal based solely on third-party statements and documents recovered from electronic devices without proper certification under section 36B of Central Excise Act was inadmissible. The appellant denied receiving invoices without physical delivery, and their RG-23 Part I register recorded all purchases, which the department failed to disprove. Since no documents were recovered from appellant's premises and third-party evidence lacks evidentiary value, the department failed to prove fake invoice usage or cenvat credit availed without goods delivery. Appeal allowed; no penalty imposed. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jan 2024 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448234 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that demand for clandestine removal based solely on third-party statements and documents recovered from electronic devices without proper certification under section 36B of Central Excise Act was inadmissible. The appellant denied receiving invoices without physical delivery, and their RG-23 Part I register recorded all purchases, which the department failed to disprove. Since no documents were recovered from appellant's premises and third-party evidence lacks evidentiary value, the department failed to prove fake invoice usage or cenvat credit availed without goods delivery. Appeal allowed; no penalty imposed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448234