https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273210 A witness statement recorded during investigation cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless the prescribed procedure for its admission is followed, and denial of cross-examination of a material witness vitiates adjudication when that statement is central to the finding. On that basis, the demand and consequential penalty were held unsustainable and the matter was remanded for limited reconsideration after granting cross-examination. The article also notes that, for the relevant period, Rule 26 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not support the penalty imposed on the director, so that penalty was set aside independently. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 21:42:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273210 A witness statement recorded during investigation cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless the prescribed procedure for its admission is followed, and denial of cross-examination of a material witness vitiates adjudication when that statement is central to the finding. On that basis, the demand and consequential penalty were held unsustainable and the matter was remanded for limited reconsideration after granting cross-examination. The article also notes that, for the relevant period, Rule 26 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not support the penalty imposed on the director, so that penalty was set aside independently. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273210