SEZ procurement and diversion findings set aside after inadmissible statements, weak data reliance, and burden-of-proof errors.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Tribunal held that the finding of excess procurement could not stand because the Commissioner relied on an earlier Bond-cum-Legal Undertaking and ignored the later one accepted by the competent authority; no excess beyond the permissible limit was shown on the revised basis. It further held that adverse findings on non-manufacture and diversion of duty-free imports were unsupported, as statements were not admissible without compliance with section 138B, NSDL data alone could not displace contemporaneous records, and the burden could not be shifted merely because export consignments were not examined. The related duty demand, joint and several liability, confiscation consequences, and penalties on entities and employees were set aside.....