<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (6) TMI 873 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362046</link>
    <description>Statements recorded during investigation can be relied on only when the evidentiary safeguards of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act and effective cross-examination are satisfied; an uncorroborated earlier statement and an untested third-party statement are not reliable by themselves. Allegations of diversion of copper cathodes must also be proved by credible corroboration, and the record here was said to support payment through banking channels, statutory entries, suitable infrastructure, and a jurisdictional enquiry report. On that basis, the alleged diversion, denial of notification benefit, and consequential duty demand and penalties could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 873 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362046</link>
      <description>Statements recorded during investigation can be relied on only when the evidentiary safeguards of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act and effective cross-examination are satisfied; an uncorroborated earlier statement and an untested third-party statement are not reliable by themselves. Allegations of diversion of copper cathodes must also be proved by credible corroboration, and the record here was said to support payment through banking channels, statutory entries, suitable infrastructure, and a jurisdictional enquiry report. On that basis, the alleged diversion, denial of notification benefit, and consequential duty demand and penalties could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>