https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286503 Demand and penalty based mainly on investigation statements could not be sustained where the assessees sought cross-examination and produced statutory records, invoices, cheque payments and endorsed transport documents showing receipt and use of inputs. The analysis states that the witnesses' statements were not tested in the manner required by Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, and denial of cross-examination weakened the Revenue's case. Contemporaneous documentary evidence, together with inconsistencies in the transporters' version, was treated as more reliable than untested oral statements, and the burden to prove non-receipt of inputs remained on the Revenue. The commentary notes that the demand and penalties were held unsustainable, while the dissent would have remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 08:50:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286503 Demand and penalty based mainly on investigation statements could not be sustained where the assessees sought cross-examination and produced statutory records, invoices, cheque payments and endorsed transport documents showing receipt and use of inputs. The analysis states that the witnesses' statements were not tested in the manner required by Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, and denial of cross-examination weakened the Revenue's case. Contemporaneous documentary evidence, together with inconsistencies in the transporters' version, was treated as more reliable than untested oral statements, and the burden to prove non-receipt of inputs remained on the Revenue. The commentary notes that the demand and penalties were held unsustainable, while the dissent would have remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286503