Denial of cross-examination and lack of corroboration can undermine reliance on witness statements in clandestine removal cases.

A duty demand, interest and penalties were challenged because the case rested mainly on a transporter's statement linking a code name in seized records to the assessee, while cross-examination was refused and no independent corroboration was produced. The stated principle is that reliance on a witness statement is vitiated when cross-examination is denied unless corroborative material independently supports the allegation of clandestine removal; the same reasoning applied to the penalties on the director and the transporter. The text also records that the challenge failed and the demand, interest and penalties were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty, interest and penalties based substantially on the transporter's statement could be sustained despite refusal of cross-examination and absence of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The demand rested on the statement of the transporter that a code name in the seized records belonged to the assessee. Cross-examination was sought but refused, even though that statement formed the foundation of the show cause notice and the alleged clandestine clearances. In the absence of that statement, there was no independent evidence establishing that the code name referred to the assessee. The statement could not, by itself, justify the finding of clandestine removal or sustain the connected penalties and confiscatory consequences. The same reasoning applied to the penalties on the director and the transporter.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the demand, interest and penalties were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, and the order of the Tribunal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department's case is founded on a witness statement, denial of cross-examination vitiates reliance on that statement unless there is independent corroborative material supporting the allegation.

---