Dept. could not allege clandestine removal of goods without proper investigation u/s 9D Excise Act

Jolla Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central GST Commissionerate (CESTAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Clandestine removal could not be sustained on mere assumptions or third-party statements without corroborative evidence and statutory compliance under Section 9D. In absence of incriminating material from assessee and failure of the Department to establish a complete chain of evidence, the demand, interest, and penalty were unsustainable. Held: Assessee was a manufacturer of M.S. Ingots, was subjected to proceedings based on investigation conducted at a third party, M/s Shree Parasnath Re-Rolling ...