https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360771 Recorded statements used to deny Cenvat credit cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless the mandatory procedure under section 9D of the Central Excise Act is followed, including proper examination and opportunity for cross-examination; otherwise the statements are inadmissible against the assessee. Where the alleged non-receipt of inputs is based mainly on transporter statements, the department must independently corroborate that claim with reliable evidence. Contemporaneous documentary records, statutory entries, cheque payments, check-post endorsements, and proof of use of inputs in manufacture can outweigh untested oral statements. On this approach, denial of credit and consequential demand cannot stand without independent proof. en-us Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 May 2018 17:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360771 Recorded statements used to deny Cenvat credit cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless the mandatory procedure under section 9D of the Central Excise Act is followed, including proper examination and opportunity for cross-examination; otherwise the statements are inadmissible against the assessee. Where the alleged non-receipt of inputs is based mainly on transporter statements, the department must independently corroborate that claim with reliable evidence. Contemporaneous documentary records, statutory entries, cheque payments, check-post endorsements, and proof of use of inputs in manufacture can outweigh untested oral statements. On this approach, denial of credit and consequential demand cannot stand without independent proof. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360771