Appeal allowed where clandestine manufacture allegations unproven; Section 9D safeguards and Section 36B certification failures fatal

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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.....