Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Section 9D compliance is mandatory before statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act can be relied on; where the maker is not first examined and the statement is not admitted in accordance with section 9D, denial of cross-examination does not cure the defect, and such statements cannot support the demand. Clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by positive, clinching corroborative evidence; in the absence of documentary support, excess inputs, unrecorded production, stock discrepancy, or transport records, the allegation failed. Penalty under rule 26 also could not stand without a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation, so the duty demand and penalties were set aside.
Section 9D compliance is mandatory before statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act can be relied on; where the maker is not first examined and the statement is not admitted in accordance with section 9D, denial of cross-examination does not cure the defect, and such statements cannot support the demand. Clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by positive, clinching corroborative evidence; in the absence of documentary support, excess inputs, unrecorded production, stock discrepancy, or transport records, the allegation failed. Penalty under rule 26 also could not stand without a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation, so the duty demand and penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
