Uncorroborated private records and statements cannot sustain excise duty demands, clandestine removal allegations, or related penalties.

Demand of duty and denial of cenvat credit based mainly on pen drive data, loose sheets and broker or buyer statements could not be sustained without corroborative evidence and compliance with Section 9D safeguards for cross-examination. The record lacked independent proof such as clandestine removals, excess raw material, transport evidence, cash trail or supplier-side investigation, and the statements were found insufficiently supported. Allegations of clandestine removal, undervaluation and credit availed without receipt of goods were therefore not proved. Penalties under Rule 26(2) also failed because they rested on the same unreliable material, and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demands of duty and denial of credit based mainly on pen drive data, loose sheets and statements of brokers and buyers could be sustained in the absence of corroborative evidence and cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the allegations of clandestine removal, undervaluation, and availment of cenvat credit without receipt of goods were proved against the assessee; (iii) Whether the penalties imposed under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the demands of duty and denial of credit based mainly on pen drive data, loose sheets and statements of brokers and buyers could be sustained in the absence of corroborative evidence and cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The demand rested primarily on private records recovered from third-party premises, pen drive printouts and statements of brokers and buyers. The Appellant sought cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon, but the request was denied. The record did not contain independent evidence such as seizure of clandestinely removed goods, proof of unaccounted raw material, excess electricity consumption, transport evidence, or cash trail linking the assessee to the alleged clearances. The statements also appeared self-contradictory and were not sufficiently corroborated by material evidence.

Conclusion: The reliance on such statements and private records, without compliance with Section 9D and without corroboration, was not sufficient to sustain the demands.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations of clandestine removal, undervaluation, and availment of cenvat credit without receipt of goods were proved against the assessee.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority treated the seized ledgers as reflecting the assessee's own clandestine sales and suppressed transactions, but the Appellant showed that the records also contained purchase-godown and other entries consistent with the activity of another entity operating from the Vasai godown. The department failed to establish a reliable one-to-one link between the alleged cash sales, the alleged undervaluation entries, and any receipt of extra consideration by the assessee. Likewise, the allegation of credit availed on invoices without receipt of goods was not backed by supplier-side investigation or any direct proof that goods were not received. The evidence was insufficient to displace the assessee's explanation.

Conclusion: The charges of clandestine removal, undervaluation, and inadmissible cenvat credit were not proved.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties imposed under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable.

Analysis: The penalties were founded on the same disputed material that failed to establish the substantive allegations. Once the underlying findings of clandestine removal and invoice-only transactions were not supported by legally reliable evidence, the penal consequences could not stand independently.

Conclusion: The penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside in entirety, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of clandestine removal or invoice-based evasion in central excise cannot be sustained solely on uncorroborated private records and statements unless the department establishes them by cogent evidence and, where relied upon, follows the mandatory safeguards governing witness statements and cross-examination.

---