https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92298 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demands and penalties against the Appellants, holding that the charge of clandestine manufacture/removal was not proved. The Tribunal found allegations rested on assumptions and presumptions without corroborative evidence: no buyer statements, no proved transportation, and no proper investigation linking third-party recoveries to the Appellants. Statements recorded during investigation lacked the Section 9D procedural safeguards and were therefore inadmissible; electronic print-outs were inadmissible for want of the requisite Section 36B certification; payment of duty during investigation did not constitute an admission. Stock shortfall based on eye-estimation was unreliable. Consequential penalties were quashed. en-us Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:08 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92298 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demands and penalties against the Appellants, holding that the charge of clandestine manufacture/removal was not proved. The Tribunal found allegations rested on assumptions and presumptions without corroborative evidence: no buyer statements, no proved transportation, and no proper investigation linking third-party recoveries to the Appellants. Statements recorded during investigation lacked the Section 9D procedural safeguards and were therefore inadmissible; electronic print-outs were inadmissible for want of the requisite Section 36B certification; payment of duty during investigation did not constitute an admission. Stock shortfall based on eye-estimation was unreliable. Consequential penalties were quashed. Highlights Central Excise Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:08 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92298