https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236357 A concluded excise determination could not be reopened under the fraud proviso unless fraud or suppression was first established by admissible evidence. A third-party statement recorded in another proceeding was not proved in the present matter and could not be treated as the assessee's admission. Because the maker of the statement and the investigating officer were not made available for cross-examination, the evidentiary requirements under the Central Excise Act and the Evidence Act were not satisfied. Reliance on such material to invoke the extended limitation period was impermissible, and the demand based on the impugned statement and report was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236357 A concluded excise determination could not be reopened under the fraud proviso unless fraud or suppression was first established by admissible evidence. A third-party statement recorded in another proceeding was not proved in the present matter and could not be treated as the assessee's admission. Because the maker of the statement and the investigating officer were not made available for cross-examination, the evidentiary requirements under the Central Excise Act and the Evidence Act were not satisfied. Reliance on such material to invoke the extended limitation period was impermissible, and the demand based on the impugned statement and report was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236357