https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467890 A demand for clandestine removal from an EOU to DTA was rejected because it rested mainly on register entries and isolated material without contemporaneous, positive corroboration, while the record did not show stock discrepancies or address wastage and industry practice. The valuation adopted was held unsustainable because the notice and order proceeded under different valuation provisions and relied on DTA sale prices without admissible evidence linking those prices to the goods in question. The extended limitation period was also not justified, as suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, and the computer printouts lacked compliance with the statutory requirements for admissibility. The demand, penalty and related findings were set aside. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:43:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467890 A demand for clandestine removal from an EOU to DTA was rejected because it rested mainly on register entries and isolated material without contemporaneous, positive corroboration, while the record did not show stock discrepancies or address wastage and industry practice. The valuation adopted was held unsustainable because the notice and order proceeded under different valuation provisions and relied on DTA sale prices without admissible evidence linking those prices to the goods in question. The extended limitation period was also not justified, as suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, and the computer printouts lacked compliance with the statutory requirements for admissibility. The demand, penalty and related findings were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467890