https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338144 A statement recorded from a director during excise investigation remained admissible where physical verification was conducted in his presence, he signed the verification chart, and the later retraction was unsupported by any proof of coercion or duress. The Tribunal treated the retraction as an afterthought. A substantial shortage of scrap, coupled with an unusually high burning loss shown in the subsequent return, was sufficient to support the allegation of clandestine removal. Objections based on the absence of a panchnama and alleged loading difficulties were rejected as inconsistent with the contemporaneous verification. The confirmed demand and penalties were upheld. en-us Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338144 A statement recorded from a director during excise investigation remained admissible where physical verification was conducted in his presence, he signed the verification chart, and the later retraction was unsupported by any proof of coercion or duress. The Tribunal treated the retraction as an afterthought. A substantial shortage of scrap, coupled with an unusually high burning loss shown in the subsequent return, was sufficient to support the allegation of clandestine removal. Objections based on the absence of a panchnama and alleged loading difficulties were rejected as inconsistent with the contemporaneous verification. The confirmed demand and penalties were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338144