https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351805 Clandestine removal demands require reliable corroborative evidence, and a statement relied on in adjudication must satisfy the cross-examination safeguards reflected in section 9D; on that basis, an uncorroborated notebook and untested statement were treated as insufficient. By contrast, seized chits supported by a cross-examined partner were accepted as adequate to sustain the quantified demand. For the third set of alleged clearances, the evidentiary record was incomplete, so the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication and the connected penalties were modified to follow the revised duty outcome. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 10:07:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351805 Clandestine removal demands require reliable corroborative evidence, and a statement relied on in adjudication must satisfy the cross-examination safeguards reflected in section 9D; on that basis, an uncorroborated notebook and untested statement were treated as insufficient. By contrast, seized chits supported by a cross-examined partner were accepted as adequate to sustain the quantified demand. For the third set of alleged clearances, the evidentiary record was incomplete, so the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication and the connected penalties were modified to follow the revised duty outcome. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351805