https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381868 Penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 15A of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not sustainable where the allegation of bogus invoicing and credit rests mainly on untested statements recorded behind the assessee's back. Such statements cannot be safely relied on without cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, especially when the record shows no stock discrepancy, no mismatch in accounts, no proof of clandestine removal, and no corroborative evidence that the goods were not received. On those facts, the penalties were liable to be set aside and consequential relief followed. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2019 08:52:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381868 Penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 15A of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not sustainable where the allegation of bogus invoicing and credit rests mainly on untested statements recorded behind the assessee's back. Such statements cannot be safely relied on without cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, especially when the record shows no stock discrepancy, no mismatch in accounts, no proof of clandestine removal, and no corroborative evidence that the goods were not received. On those facts, the penalties were liable to be set aside and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381868