https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268225 Cross-examination under Section 9D is required where a central excise duty demand principally relies on uncorroborated buyer statements, unless the statutory conditions permitting reliance without cross-examination are examined and recorded. The buyer-statement-based demand was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication. A separate demand based on deposits in undisclosed bank accounts, employee and customer statements, and selected invoices could not be sustained on incomplete evidence: the record did not establish that all deposits represented clandestine clearances, address concerns over receipts attributed to another entity, or verify all relevant customer payments. That demand was also remanded for fresh factual determination, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268225 Cross-examination under Section 9D is required where a central excise duty demand principally relies on uncorroborated buyer statements, unless the statutory conditions permitting reliance without cross-examination are examined and recorded. The buyer-statement-based demand was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication. A separate demand based on deposits in undisclosed bank accounts, employee and customer statements, and selected invoices could not be sustained on incomplete evidence: the record did not establish that all deposits represented clandestine clearances, address concerns over receipts attributed to another entity, or verify all relevant customer payments. That demand was also remanded for fresh factual determination, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268225