https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782820 CESTAT Kolkata set aside the demand of excise duty and penalties for alleged clandestine removal against the appellant-company and its director. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's case, based solely on non-certified computer printouts and recorded statements, lacked evidentiary value as statutory requirements under Section 36B and Section 9D were not followed. Additionally, no corroborative evidence was produced regarding raw material consumption, electricity usage, vehicle movement, buyer statements, or stock discrepancies. The quantification of alleged manufacture was found baseless and founded on assumptions. Consequently, the primary demand failed, and the penalty on the appellant-director also stood annulled. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782820 CESTAT Kolkata set aside the demand of excise duty and penalties for alleged clandestine removal against the appellant-company and its director. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's case, based solely on non-certified computer printouts and recorded statements, lacked evidentiary value as statutory requirements under Section 36B and Section 9D were not followed. Additionally, no corroborative evidence was produced regarding raw material consumption, electricity usage, vehicle movement, buyer statements, or stock discrepancies. The quantification of alleged manufacture was found baseless and founded on assumptions. Consequently, the primary demand failed, and the penalty on the appellant-director also stood annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782820