https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198474 Statements recorded during investigation and later retracted could not be treated as reliable substantive evidence against the assessee without independent corroboration. Where the department relied on such statements, denial of cross-examination of their makers was unjustified on the facts, and the safeguard reflected in Section 9D(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not satisfied. The demand and penalties, as sustained below, therefore did not survive appellate scrutiny, and no substantial question of law arose in the revenue's appeal. en-us Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jan 2019 18:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198474 Statements recorded during investigation and later retracted could not be treated as reliable substantive evidence against the assessee without independent corroboration. Where the department relied on such statements, denial of cross-examination of their makers was unjustified on the facts, and the safeguard reflected in Section 9D(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not satisfied. The demand and penalties, as sustained below, therefore did not survive appellate scrutiny, and no substantial question of law arose in the revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198474