https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263903 The court dismissed the petition challenging the denial of the right to cross-examine key individuals in an investigation under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner's contentions regarding the cross-examination of individuals like Manoj Mitulal and Sohanraj Mehta were rejected as they had not provided statements or acted as witnesses for the revenue. The court emphasized that statements made during an inquiry are not admissible as evidence unless the individual is examined as a witness. The burden of proof was placed on the revenue to establish allegations, and the demand for cross-examination of officers conducting surveillance was deemed unsubstantiated. en-us Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263903 The court dismissed the petition challenging the denial of the right to cross-examine key individuals in an investigation under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner's contentions regarding the cross-examination of individuals like Manoj Mitulal and Sohanraj Mehta were rejected as they had not provided statements or acted as witnesses for the revenue. The court emphasized that statements made during an inquiry are not admissible as evidence unless the individual is examined as a witness. The burden of proof was placed on the revenue to establish allegations, and the demand for cross-examination of officers conducting surveillance was deemed unsubstantiated. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263903