https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255018 When Revenue relies on third-party inculpatory statements to deny CENVAT credit, effective cross-examination of those witnesses is necessary, and a remand direction to permit such cross-examination must be properly complied with. Unsupported findings that suppliers had appeared, when the record showed otherwise, could not justify denial of credit. The evidence was also found insufficient to sustain demand, interest and penalties where transport evidence supported movement of goods, traders' statements remained untested, and no independent enquiry or corroborative material established non-receipt of inputs or an alternate source of raw material. Uncorroborated suspicion could not replace proof. en-us Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255018 When Revenue relies on third-party inculpatory statements to deny CENVAT credit, effective cross-examination of those witnesses is necessary, and a remand direction to permit such cross-examination must be properly complied with. Unsupported findings that suppliers had appeared, when the record showed otherwise, could not justify denial of credit. The evidence was also found insufficient to sustain demand, interest and penalties where transport evidence supported movement of goods, traders' statements remained untested, and no independent enquiry or corroborative material established non-receipt of inputs or an alternate source of raw material. Uncorroborated suspicion could not replace proof. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255018