https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373997 Demand of duty and denial of cenvat credit based mainly on pen drive data, loose sheets and broker or buyer statements could not be sustained without corroborative evidence and compliance with Section 9D safeguards for cross-examination. The record lacked independent proof such as clandestine removals, excess raw material, transport evidence, cash trail or supplier-side investigation, and the statements were found insufficiently supported. Allegations of clandestine removal, undervaluation and credit availed without receipt of goods were therefore not proved. Penalties under Rule 26(2) also failed because they rested on the same unreliable material, and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jan 2019 07:21:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373997 Demand of duty and denial of cenvat credit based mainly on pen drive data, loose sheets and broker or buyer statements could not be sustained without corroborative evidence and compliance with Section 9D safeguards for cross-examination. The record lacked independent proof such as clandestine removals, excess raw material, transport evidence, cash trail or supplier-side investigation, and the statements were found insufficiently supported. Allegations of clandestine removal, undervaluation and credit availed without receipt of goods were therefore not proved. Penalties under Rule 26(2) also failed because they rested on the same unreliable material, and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373997