https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759409 CESTAT NEW DELHI held that the Principal Commissioner erred in declining to examine GEQD officials who retrieved data from electronic devices, despite tribunal's earlier direction requiring such examination. The Commissioner's reasoning that GEQD's prestigious status exempted it from cross-examination was rejected. The tribunal emphasized that high-profile experts' evidence can still be questioned and cross-examined. Additionally, mandatory procedures under section 36B of Central Excise Act were not followed for data retrieval. Consequently, the electronic data was deemed inadmissible as evidence, insufficient to establish clandestine removal or duty recovery. The demand confirmation, duty, interest, and penalties were set aside, with appeals allowed. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2024 08:23:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759409 CESTAT NEW DELHI held that the Principal Commissioner erred in declining to examine GEQD officials who retrieved data from electronic devices, despite tribunal's earlier direction requiring such examination. The Commissioner's reasoning that GEQD's prestigious status exempted it from cross-examination was rejected. The tribunal emphasized that high-profile experts' evidence can still be questioned and cross-examined. Additionally, mandatory procedures under section 36B of Central Excise Act were not followed for data retrieval. Consequently, the electronic data was deemed inadmissible as evidence, insufficient to establish clandestine removal or duty recovery. The demand confirmation, duty, interest, and penalties were set aside, with appeals allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759409