{"id":8030,"date":"2026-02-20T09:25:23","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T03:55:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/?p=8030"},"modified":"2026-02-20T09:25:23","modified_gmt":"2026-02-20T03:55:23","slug":"clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat","title":{"rendered":"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof &#038; Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT"},"content":{"rendered":"<pre><strong>Case Details: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/latest-news-updates\/excise-service-tax\/101010000000410178\/gaps-in-probe-no-proof-of-excess-inputs-or-intent-and-non-compliance-with-s9d-charge-of-clandestine-removal-failed-trib\">Geetham Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST &amp; Central Excise, Salem (2025) 36 Centax 41 (Tri.-Mad)<\/a><\/strong><\/pre>\n<h2><em>Judiciary and Counsel Details<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Ajayan T.V.<\/strong>, Member (J) &amp;\u00a0<strong>Vasa Seshagiri Rao<\/strong>, Member (T)<\/li>\n<li><strong>S\/Shri S. Durairaj, M. Karthikeyan, Ms P. Varshini, S. Venkatachalam, M.A. Mudimannan, M. Kannan<\/strong> &amp; <strong>R. Balachandar<\/strong>, Advs., for the Appellant.<\/li>\n<li><strong>S\/Shri Sanjay Kakkar<\/strong> &amp; <strong>Anoop Singh<\/strong>, Authorised Representatives, for the Respondent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><em>Facts of the Case<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots and was alleged to have clandestinely manufactured and cleared goods without accounting for them, and to have availed ineligible Cenvat credit. The allegation was principally based on data recovered from pen drives, CPU and hard disk during the investigation. It was alleged that there was a clandestine removal of MS ingots and wrongful availment of Cenvat credit. The assessee contended that the investigation suffered from glaring gaps and lapses, as no evidence was brought on record regarding unaccounted procurement of raw materials, excess consumption of fuel or electricity, labour deployment, or examination of the production capacity of the factory. The assessee further pleaded non-compliance with Section 9D(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the ground that deponents were not examined, and violation of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in relation to electronic evidence. The matter was accordingly placed before the Tribunal.<\/p>\n<h2><em>CESTAT Held<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>The Tribunal held that the standards of evidence in matters of clandestine removal are \u2018clear and convincing evidence\u2019. It was held that there was no \u2018clear and convincing evidence\u2019 to establish clandestine removal and Cenvat credit availment without receipt of inputs. The investigative procedure&#8217;s credibility regarding data retrieval from pen drives, CPU and hard disk was found to be irrevocably tarnished, and adverse inference against the investigation had to be drawn as best possible evidence contemporaneously available and easily accessible for conclusive results was either not examined or, if examined, not pursued to a logical end. The Tribunal further held that Section 9D(2) was violated and that Section 14 statements could not be relied on without following the mandate of Section 9D; reliance on untested statements was not sustainable and rendered the clandestine removal case unsustainable.<\/p>\n<h2><em>List of Cases Cited<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1996%20(84)%20E.L.T.%20229%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Aditya Steel Industries v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 1996 (84) E.L.T. 229 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(307)%20E.L.T.%20791%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Ambeecee Consolidated Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2014 (307) E.L.T. 791 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(148)%20E.L.T.%20101%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Ambika Chemicals v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2002 (148) E.L.T. 101 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2017%20(352)%20E.L.T.%20416%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer<\/a> \u2014 2017 (352) E.L.T. 416 (S.C.) \u2014 Followed [Paras 16, 74, 90]<\/li>\n<li>Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal \u2014 (2020) 3 SCC 216 \u2014 Followed [Para 74]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(311)%20E.L.T.%20529%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2014 (311) E.L.T. 529 (Tribunal) \u2014 Relied on [Para 83]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1992%20(59)%20E.L.T.%20175%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Ashwin Vanaspati Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1992 (59) E.L.T. 175 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1991%20(51)%20E.L.T.%20631%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Assistant Collector v. Ramdev Tobacco Company<\/a> \u2014 1991 (51) E.L.T. 631 (S.C.) \u2014 Followed [Para 68]<\/li>\n<li>Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner \u2014 Final Order No. 40508\/2024, dated 1-5-2024 by CESTAT, Chennai \u2014 Referred [Para 20]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(307)%20E.L.T.%20377%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Bhartiya Tar Udyog v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2014 (307) E.L.T. 377 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Paras 16, 25]<\/li>\n<li>Bipin Badani v. Union of India \u2014 2023:BHC-AS:36767-DB \u2014 Followed [Para 62]<\/li>\n<li>Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra \u2014 2025 INSC 116 \u2014 Followed [Paras 72, 73]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1983%20(13)%20E.L.T.%201546%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Collector v. D. Bhoormull<\/a> \u2014 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1546 (S.C.) \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li>Commissioner v. Ambica Chemicals \u2014 2003 (153) E.L.T. A299 (S.C.) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2011%20(271)%20E.L.T.%20184%20(Pat.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Brims Products<\/a> \u2014 2011 (271) E.L.T. 184 (Pat.) \u2014 Followed [Para 82]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2003%20(157)%20E.L.T.%20A315%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Durga Trading Co.<\/a> \u2014 2003 (157) E.L.T. A315 (S.C.) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2010%20(255)%20E.L.T.%2068%20(H.P.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. International Cylinders Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2010 (255) E.L.T. 68 (H.P.) \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2024%20(388)%20E.L.T.%20529%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Junaid Kudia<\/a> \u2014 2024 (388) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) = (2024) 16 Centax 504 (S.C.) \u2014 Referred [Para 20]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2015%20(319)%20E.L.T.%20A52%20(Guj.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Mahesh Silk Mills<\/a> \u2014 2015 (319) E.L.T. A52 (Guj.) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2018%20(16)%20G.S.T.L.%2073%20(Bom.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. R.K. Patel &amp; Co.<\/a> \u2014 2018 (16) G.S.T.L. 73 (Bom.) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2009%20(243)%20E.L.T.%20280%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Rajaguru Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2009 (243) E.L.T. 280 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(300)%20E.L.T.%20342%20(Mad.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Sainul Abideen Neelam<\/a> \u2014 2014 (300) E.L.T. 342 (Mad.) \u2014 Followed [Para 56]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2004%20(163)%20E.L.T.%20472%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Sangamitra Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2004 (163) E.L.T. 472 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2010%20(255)%20E.L.T.%20221%20(P%20%26%20H)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Shingar Lamps Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2010 (255) E.L.T. 221 (P &amp; H) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(308)%20E.L.T.%20612%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2014 (308) E.L.T. 612 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Paras 16, 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(308)%20E.L.T.%20154%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2014 (308) E.L.T. 154 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Paras 16, 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2008%20(230)%20E.L.T.%2081%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Sumetco Alloys Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2008 (230) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(306)%20E.L.T.%20629%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Trela Footwear Exports Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2014 (306) E.L.T. 629 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Paras 16, 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2004%20(170)%20E.L.T.%20A307%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Woodmen Industries<\/a> \u2014 2004 (170) E.L.T. A307 (S.C.) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(309)%20E.L.T.%20411%20(All.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Continental Cement Company v. Union of India<\/a> \u2014 2014 (309) E.L.T. 411 (All.) \u2014 Followed [Para 81]<\/li>\n<li>Dr. Pratap Singh v. Director of Enforcement Fund, Oreign Exchange Regulation \u2014 1985 INSC 106 \u2014 Followed [Para 54]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(148)%20E.L.T.%20967%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Durga Trading Co. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2002 (148) E.L.T. 967 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2004%20(165)%20E.L.T.%20291%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Essvee Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2004 (165) E.L.T. 291 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li>F. Tech Engineering Co. Jignesh Pambhar v. Commissioner \u2014 2019 (7) TMI 1814-CESTAT, Ahmedabad \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li>Global Extrusion Ltd. v. Commissioner \u2014 2024 (1) TMI 772 \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(184)%20E.L.T.%20263%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2005 (184) E.L.T. 263 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1996%20(82)%20E.L.T.%20347%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Gurpreet Rubber Industries v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1996 (82) E.L.T. 347 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Paras 16, 19]<\/li>\n<li>Harika Resins Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner \u2014 2021 (7) TMI 891-CESTAT-Hyderabad \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li>Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. \u2014 2012 INSC 147 \u2014 Followed [Para 86]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1984%20(17)%20E.L.T.%20513%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Indian Cork Mills Ltd. v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1984 (17) E.L.T. 513 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2009%20(242)%20E.L.T.%20189%20(Del.)&amp;itemType=AP\">J &amp; K Cigarettes Ltd. v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 2009 (242) E.L.T. 189 (Del.) \u2014 Followed [Paras 63, 66]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2013%20(293)%20E.L.T.%20539%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Jai Mata Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2013 (293) E.L.T. 539 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2016%20(340)%20E.L.T.%2067&amp;itemType=AP\">Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India<\/a> \u2014 2016 (340) E.L.T. 67 (P &amp; H) \u2014 Followed [Paras 64, 66, 69]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2012%20(279)%20E.L.T.%20134%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Jindal Nickel &amp; Alloys Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2012 (279) E.L.T. 134 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1997%20(90)%20E.L.T.%20241%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector<\/a> \u2014 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) \u2014 Followed[Paras 35, 39, 50]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2018%20(15)%20G.S.T.L.%20350%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Kakateeya Fabs (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 350 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2006%20(200)%20E.L.T.%20104%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Kamar Ali and Sons v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2006 (200) E.L.T. 104 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li>Karsh Enterprises v. Commissioner \u2014 2021 (8) TMI 1225-CESTAT-Chandigarh \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1989%20(39)%20E.L.T.%20655%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Kashmir Vanaspati (P.) Ltd. v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1989 (39) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Paras 16, 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2003%20(159)%20E.L.T.%201162%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Kirtibhai Maganbhai Patel v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2003 (159) E.L.T. 1162 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2017%20(51)%20S.T.R.%20228%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">M.J. Exporters Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India<\/a> \u2014 2017 (51) S.T.R. 228 (S.C.) \u2014 Followed [Para 68]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2001%20(130)%20E.L.T.%20344%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">M.T.K. Gurusamy v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2001 (130) E.L.T. 344 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(304)%20E.L.T.%20703%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Mahesh Silk Mills v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2014 (304) E.L.T. 703 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1992%20(58)%20E.L.T.%20192%20(Cal.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Manindra Chandra Dey v. CEGAT<\/a> \u2014 1992 (58) E.L.T. 192 (Cal.) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li>Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan \u2014 AIR 2001 SC 93 \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2019%20(368)%20E.L.T.%201101%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Manmeet Ispat Private Limited v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2019 (368) E.L.T. 1101 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li>Metal Alloys Industries v. Commissioner \u2014 2023 SCC Online CESTAT 235 \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li>Mili Detergent Industries v. Commissioner \u2014 2019 (7) TMI 825-CESTAT-Ahmedabad \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(302)%20E.L.T.%2069%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Motabhai Iron &amp; Steel Industries v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2014 (302) E.L.T. 69 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2026)%2038%20Centax%20276%20(Tri.-Cal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Narsingh Ispat Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> &#8211; (2026) 38 Centax 276 (Tri.-Cal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li>Navbharat Fuse Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner &#8211; 2020 (1) TMI 321 \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1986%20(23)%20E.L.T.%20507%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Orient Enterprises v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1986 (23) E.L.T. 507 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1978%20(2)%20E.L.T.%20172%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India<\/a> \u2014 1978 (2) E.L.T. 172 (S.C.) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2008%20(221)%20E.L.T.%20290%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Ponneri Steel Industries v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2008 (221) E.L.T. 290 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2025)%2037%20Centax%20222%20(Tri.-Cal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Premier Power Products (Cal) Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 (2025) 37 Centax 222 (Tri.-Cal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(184)%20E.L.T.%20165%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Premium Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2005 (184) E.L.T. 165 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2012%20(284)%20E.L.T.%20641%20(Cal.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Prompt Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2012 (284) E.L.T. 641 (Cal.) \u2014 Referred [Para 24]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2008%20(227)%20E.L.T.%20558%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">R.K. Patel and Co. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2008 (227) E.L.T. 558 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2015%20(328)%20E.L.T.%20124%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">R.M. Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2015 (328) E.L.T. 124 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2003%20(153)%20E.L.T.%20114%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">R.S. Industries v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2003 (153) E.L.T. 114 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2010%20(252)%20E.L.T.%20375%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">R.S. Jhaveri and Co. Exports v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2010 (252) E.L.T. 375 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li>Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar \u2014 1998 INSC 191 \u2014 Followed [Para 44]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2023%20(68)%20G.S.T.L.%20292%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Reynolds Petro Chem Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2023 (68) G.S.T.L. 292 (Tribunal) = (2022) 1 Centax 58 (Tri. &#8211; Ahmd.) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1996%20(85)%20E.L.T.%20260%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Rhino Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1996 (85) E.L.T. 260 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2018%20(361)%20E.L.T.%20761%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">S.N. Agrotech v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2018 (361) E.L.T. 761 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2013%20(296)%20E.L.T.%20392%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Sakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2013 (296) E.L.T. 392 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2019%20(366)%20E.L.T.%20280%20(Cal.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Sampad Narayan Mukherjee v. Union of India<\/a> \u2014 2019 (366) E.L.T. 280 (Cal.) \u2014 Followed [Para 65]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(150)%20E.L.T.%20290%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Shingar Lamps Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2002 (150) E.L.T. 290 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Paras 16, 19, 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2017%20(51)%20S.T.R.%2064%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Shonam Siddharth v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2017 (51) S.T.R. 64 (Tribunal) \u2014 Followed [Para 68]<br \/>\nShree Balaji Furnaces P. Ltd. v. Commissioner \u2014 2024 (10) TMI 8-CESTAT, New Delhi \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2008%20(231)%20E.L.T.%2067%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Shri Chakra Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2008 (231) E.L.T. 67 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2017%20(348)%20E.L.T.%20540%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Sri Rama Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2017 (348) E.L.T. 540 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2007%20(217)%20E.L.T.%20506%20(Tribunal-LB)&amp;itemType=AP\">Steel Tubes of India Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2007 (217) E.L.T. 506 (Tribunal-LB) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2020%20(371)%20E.L.T.%20751%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Super Smelters Limited v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2020 (371) E.L.T. 751 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(140)%20E.L.T.%20187%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">T.G.L. Poshak Corpn. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2002 (140) E.L.T. 187 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Paras 16, 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2018%20(363)%20E.L.T.%203%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> \u2014 2018 (363) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) \u2014 Followed [Para 38]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2025)%2036%20Centax%20260%20(Tri.%20-%20Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">Trikoot Iron &amp; Steel Casting Ltd. v Additional Director General (ADJN), DGGI<\/a> \u2014 (2025) 36 Centax 260 (Tri. &#8211; Del) \u2014 Followed [Paras 16, 74]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2009%20(239)%20E.L.T.%20429%20(Guj.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Umiya Chem Intermediate v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2009 (239) E.L.T. 429 (Guj.) \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li>Union of India v. Ashok Kumar \u2014 (2005) 8 SCC 760 \u2014 Followed [Para 80]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2003%20(161)%20E.L.T.%20585%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">United Metal and Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2003 (161) E.L.T. 585 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2008%20(223)%20E.L.T.%20630%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Universal Radiators Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2008 (223) E.L.T. 630 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 19]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2013%20(288)%20E.L.T.%20161%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) \u2014 Followed [Para 80]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2001%20(127)%20E.L.T.%20618%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Ureka Polymers Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2001 (127) E.L.T. 618 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li>Vishnu Chemicals Ltd v. Commissioner \u2014 2019 (7) TMI 952-CESTAT-HYDERABAD \u2014 Referred [Para 25]<\/li>\n<li>Williamson Magor and Company Ltd. v. Assistant Collector \u2014 Crl. Appeal No. 470 of 2019 by Madras High Court \u2014 Followed [Paras 48, 49]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2004%20(164)%20E.L.T.%20339%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Woodmen Industries v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2004 (164) E.L.T. 339 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2013%20(298)%20E.L.T.%2086%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Yamuna Machines Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2013 (298) E.L.T. 86 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Para 16]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><em>List of Notifications Cited<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=Notification%20No.%2067%2F95-C.E.&amp;itemType=AP\">Notification No. 67\/95-C.E.<\/a>, dated 16-3-1995 [Paras 16, 85]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=Notification%20No.%2032%2F2006-C.E.%20(N.T.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Notification No. 32\/2006-C.E. (N.T.)<\/a>, dated 30-12-2006 [Para 85]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Details: Geetham Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST &amp; Central&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":8074,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[49,51,63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8030","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-excise-service-tax","category-news-excise-service-tax","category-est-case-chronicles"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.9 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof &amp; Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"CESTAT quashes clandestine removal demand due to lack of proof, probe gaps and non-compliance with Sec. 9D; electronic evidence and statements held unreliable.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof &amp; Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"CESTAT quashes clandestine removal demand due to lack of proof, probe gaps and non-compliance with Sec. 9D; electronic evidence and statements held unreliable.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Centax-Blogs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-20T03:55:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"540\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Centax\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Centax\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Centax\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a\"},\"headline\":\"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof &#038; Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-20T03:55:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat\"},\"wordCount\":1572,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Excise &amp; Service Tax\",\"News\",\"Case Chronicles\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat\",\"name\":\"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof & Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-20T03:55:23+00:00\",\"description\":\"CESTAT quashes clandestine removal demand due to lack of proof, probe gaps and non-compliance with Sec. 9D; electronic evidence and statements held unreliable.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg\",\"width\":920,\"height\":540,\"caption\":\"clandestine removal evidence\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof &#038; Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Centax-Blogs\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Centax-Blogs\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp\",\"width\":536,\"height\":133,\"caption\":\"Centax-Blogs\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a\",\"name\":\"Centax\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Centax\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/author\/centax-editorial-team\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof & Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT","description":"CESTAT quashes clandestine removal demand due to lack of proof, probe gaps and non-compliance with Sec. 9D; electronic evidence and statements held unreliable.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof & Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT","og_description":"CESTAT quashes clandestine removal demand due to lack of proof, probe gaps and non-compliance with Sec. 9D; electronic evidence and statements held unreliable.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat","og_site_name":"Centax-Blogs","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia","article_published_time":"2026-02-20T03:55:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":920,"height":540,"url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Centax","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Centax","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat"},"author":{"name":"Centax","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a"},"headline":"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof &#038; Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT","datePublished":"2026-02-20T03:55:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat"},"wordCount":1572,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg","articleSection":["Excise &amp; Service Tax","News","Case Chronicles"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat","name":"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof & Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg","datePublished":"2026-02-20T03:55:23+00:00","description":"CESTAT quashes clandestine removal demand due to lack of proof, probe gaps and non-compliance with Sec. 9D; electronic evidence and statements held unreliable.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/3.-Clandestine-Removal-Charge-Fails-Without-Proof-Section-9D-Compliance.jpg","width":920,"height":540,"caption":"clandestine removal evidence"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/clandestine-removal-charge-fails-without-proof-section-9d-compliance-cestat#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Clandestine Removal Charge Fails Without Proof &#038; Section 9D Compliance | CESTAT"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/","name":"Centax-Blogs","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Centax-Blogs","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp","width":536,"height":133,"caption":"Centax-Blogs"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a","name":"Centax","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Centax"},"url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/author\/centax-editorial-team"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8030","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8030"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8030\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8075,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8030\/revisions\/8075"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8074"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8030"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8030"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8030"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}