https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329248 The court found that respondent no.2 failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in relying on statements recorded under Section 14 without proper admission as evidence. Consequently, the Order-in-Original confirming a significant Central Excise Duty demand was set aside. The court remanded the case for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the necessity to follow Section 9D procedures and principles of natural justice, including allowing cross-examination of witnesses. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the original order was overturned. en-us Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Nov 2016 11:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329248 The court found that respondent no.2 failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in relying on statements recorded under Section 14 without proper admission as evidence. Consequently, the Order-in-Original confirming a significant Central Excise Duty demand was set aside. The court remanded the case for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the necessity to follow Section 9D procedures and principles of natural justice, including allowing cross-examination of witnesses. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the original order was overturned. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329248