https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122107 Confiscation based solely on a panchnama drawn during search could not stand where the supporting witnesses later filed affidavits denying their presence at the factory and the authority rejected those affidavits without verification. The proper course was to test the witnesses by cross-examination or otherwise confirm their version before treating the panchnama as reliable evidence. Once the panchnama became doubtful, the seizure proceedings also lost their evidentiary foundation. Confiscation and the consequential penalties were therefore not sustainable. en-us Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:15:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122107 Confiscation based solely on a panchnama drawn during search could not stand where the supporting witnesses later filed affidavits denying their presence at the factory and the authority rejected those affidavits without verification. The proper course was to test the witnesses by cross-examination or otherwise confirm their version before treating the panchnama as reliable evidence. Once the panchnama became doubtful, the seizure proceedings also lost their evidentiary foundation. Confiscation and the consequential penalties were therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122107