https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351623 Statements recorded during investigation could not be treated as the sole basis for demand unless the witness was examined before the adjudicating authority and the assessee was given a fair opportunity for cross-examination; on that footing, reliance on untested statements was unsustainable. Allegations of clandestine removal and undervaluation also failed because the record lacked independent corroboration such as excess raw material, higher power consumption, identified buyers, transport proof, or proof of sale proceeds. The demand and related penalties were therefore largely set aside, with only the limited consequence arising from admitted delayed duty payment being retained. en-us Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 07:30:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351623 Statements recorded during investigation could not be treated as the sole basis for demand unless the witness was examined before the adjudicating authority and the assessee was given a fair opportunity for cross-examination; on that footing, reliance on untested statements was unsustainable. Allegations of clandestine removal and undervaluation also failed because the record lacked independent corroboration such as excess raw material, higher power consumption, identified buyers, transport proof, or proof of sale proceeds. The demand and related penalties were therefore largely set aside, with only the limited consequence arising from admitted delayed duty payment being retained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351623