The case before CESTAT Chennai involved the recovery of ...

Admissibility of electronic evidence u/s 36B - Compliance issue - Demand quantification based on cash to invoice value - CESTAT set aside the demand.

Case Laws Central Excise

May 24, 2024

The case before CESTAT Chennai involved the recovery of short-paid excise duty, interest, and penalty, focusing on the admissibility of electronic evidence obtained during previous proceedings for a different company. The key issues included compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, quantification of demand based on cash to invoice value, and alleged suppression of facts. The tribunal found that the electronic evidence did not comply with Section 36B, rendering it inadmissible. Additionally, the method of quantifying duty based on dealer prices from different regions was deemed inappropriate. Ultimately, the demand for duty, interest, and penalties was not sustained, and the appeal was allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The case before CESTAT Chennai involved the recovery of ...

Admissibility of electronic evidence u/s 36B - Compliance issue - Demand quantification based on cash to invoice value - CESTAT set aside the demand.

Case Laws Central Excise

May 24, 2024

You may also like:

Invesitgation - admissibility of computer printouts as evidences or not - Electronic records being more susceptible to tempering, alteration, transposition, excision etc....

The case involves a dispute regarding valuation for import assessment. The appellant challenges the rejection of declared value in favor of depreciated value in the...

Clandestine removal - the Commissioner himself having found that the main evidence relied for quantification of duty i.e. computer print outs being not admissible in...

Fully electronic refund process through FORM GST RFD-01 and single disbursement - CBIC clarifies various issues

Electronic evidences - Section 138C of Customs Act, 1962 - it is found that the entire case proceeded on the basis of the electronic documents as evidence. But the...

Validity of Assessment u/s 153A - no search conducted u/s 132 and 132A as against the petitioner - Incriminating material from laptop - Electronic evidence admissibility...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non-compliance of notice issues - if the quantum proceedings itself are declared to be bad in law and quashed , then any non compliance on the...

Initiation of CIRP - Whether the WhatsApp conversation between the Parties can be admitted as evidence? - The proof of service through electronic mode would not form...

Rejection of SVLDRS declaration - quantification qualifies as quantification before 30.6.2019 under SVLDRS, 2019 or not - Claim of quantification based on letter issued...

Clandestine Removal - non-production of corroborative evidences - The provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944 of the...

Clandestine removal - In the present case, the main evidence on which, Revenue has sought to establish the case of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods is in the...

Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (ECRL) is sufficient or Debit from electronic cash ledger (ECL) is must?

Clandestine removal of goods - few statements, which are not corroborated by other evidences and were subsequently retracted, cannot be the sole basis for...

This text outlines the regulations related to evidence, affidavits, additional evidence, summoning of witnesses, issuing commissions, authorizing representatives,...

Service tax demand on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services rendered on reverse charge basis set aside as appellant did not collect service tax from service recipient....

Quick Updates: