https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384682 Allegations of clandestine receipt of inputs and clandestine clearance of finished goods could not be sustained where the Revenue relied mainly on recorded statements but produced no independent corroborative evidence of procurement, manufacture, or removal. The tribunal held that a mere statement, without supporting material or discrepancies at the assessee's premises, was insufficient to prove such serious charges. It further found that the statements were not tested in accordance with Section 9D and that effective cross-examination was denied, undermining the evidentiary basis of the demand. In the absence of tangible proof, the duty demand and connected penalties were set aside. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Aug 2019 21:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384682 Allegations of clandestine receipt of inputs and clandestine clearance of finished goods could not be sustained where the Revenue relied mainly on recorded statements but produced no independent corroborative evidence of procurement, manufacture, or removal. The tribunal held that a mere statement, without supporting material or discrepancies at the assessee's premises, was insufficient to prove such serious charges. It further found that the statements were not tested in accordance with Section 9D and that effective cross-examination was denied, undermining the evidentiary basis of the demand. In the absence of tangible proof, the duty demand and connected penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384682