https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764002 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal in a case involving mis-declaration of MRP and clandestine removal of ceramic tiles. The tribunal held that demands based on witness statements recorded during investigation without cross-examination were inadmissible evidence under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. Following precedent from Ocean Ceramics Ltd., the MRP issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The demand for differential duty on alleged clandestine removal of 96,646 boxes was rejected as it relied on inadmissible statements and computer-generated evidence without proper compliance with Section 36B procedures. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jan 2025 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764002 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal in a case involving mis-declaration of MRP and clandestine removal of ceramic tiles. The tribunal held that demands based on witness statements recorded during investigation without cross-examination were inadmissible evidence under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. Following precedent from Ocean Ceramics Ltd., the MRP issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The demand for differential duty on alleged clandestine removal of 96,646 boxes was rejected as it relied on inadmissible statements and computer-generated evidence without proper compliance with Section 36B procedures. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764002