<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Panchnama and section 9D evidence rules defeat clandestine manufacture demand where manufacturer identity is not proved.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98543</link>
    <description>Panchnamas drawn during search were held unreliable because the panch witnesses were not shown to be local inhabitants, no reason was recorded for using distant witnesses, and they were not examined or made available for cross-examination. Statements recorded under section 14 were also treated as inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under section 9D was not followed before relying on them in adjudication. Once the panchnamas, statements and diary were excluded, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the manufacturer of the alleged clandestinely produced pan masala and gutkha or liable for duty, interest, penalty or confiscation. The demand for the later period failed, and the department&#039;s appeal for the earlier period was also dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Panchnama and section 9D evidence rules defeat clandestine manufacture demand where manufacturer identity is not proved.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98543</link>
      <description>Panchnamas drawn during search were held unreliable because the panch witnesses were not shown to be local inhabitants, no reason was recorded for using distant witnesses, and they were not examined or made available for cross-examination. Statements recorded under section 14 were also treated as inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under section 9D was not followed before relying on them in adjudication. Once the panchnamas, statements and diary were excluded, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the manufacturer of the alleged clandestinely produced pan masala and gutkha or liable for duty, interest, penalty or confiscation. The demand for the later period failed, and the department&#039;s appeal for the earlier period was also dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>