https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355600 A charge of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on private diaries, loose papers or statements alone unless the department produces corroborative evidence of manufacture, clearance, buyers, transport or sale proceeds and complies with the statutory safeguard of cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Here, the chemist diaries only recorded issue of raw material and did not by themselves prove actual manufacture or clearance of excisable goods. The relevant statement was not properly tested through examination and cross-examination, causing a breach of natural justice. The alleged clandestine removal was therefore not proved, and the duty demand, confiscation and penalties failed. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 07:10:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355600 A charge of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on private diaries, loose papers or statements alone unless the department produces corroborative evidence of manufacture, clearance, buyers, transport or sale proceeds and complies with the statutory safeguard of cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Here, the chemist diaries only recorded issue of raw material and did not by themselves prove actual manufacture or clearance of excisable goods. The relevant statement was not properly tested through examination and cross-examination, causing a breach of natural justice. The alleged clandestine removal was therefore not proved, and the duty demand, confiscation and penalties failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355600