https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363454 Statutory conversion documents and departmental acknowledgments showing yarn sent for conversion under excise procedure could not be disregarded merely because of limited vehicle-number discrepancies or a Range Officer's statement about non-verification. Statements of buyers and job workers were also unreliable unless proved in compliance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so they could not be used as substantive evidence against the assessee. On the overall record, including the absence of a reeling machine and payment of conversion charges, the evidence supported lawful conversion into hank yarn rather than clandestine removal, making the demand and penalties unsustainable. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363454 Statutory conversion documents and departmental acknowledgments showing yarn sent for conversion under excise procedure could not be disregarded merely because of limited vehicle-number discrepancies or a Range Officer's statement about non-verification. Statements of buyers and job workers were also unreliable unless proved in compliance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so they could not be used as substantive evidence against the assessee. On the overall record, including the absence of a reeling machine and payment of conversion charges, the evidence supported lawful conversion into hank yarn rather than clandestine removal, making the demand and penalties unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363454