https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414117 Demand for wrongly availed CENVAT credit and the related penalty failed because the department relied mainly on dealer statements that were not examined in adjudication as required by Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, making them inadmissible for that purpose. The remaining documents, including the SAIL letter and laboratory report, were not independently supported by the assessee's own test report, and oral statements could not be used to prove the contents of documentary evidence without a proper legal foundation. As the alleged material mismatch was not proved through admissible and corroborated evidence, the demand and penalty were set aside with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Oct 2021 04:48:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414117 Demand for wrongly availed CENVAT credit and the related penalty failed because the department relied mainly on dealer statements that were not examined in adjudication as required by Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, making them inadmissible for that purpose. The remaining documents, including the SAIL letter and laboratory report, were not independently supported by the assessee's own test report, and oral statements could not be used to prove the contents of documentary evidence without a proper legal foundation. As the alleged material mismatch was not proved through admissible and corroborated evidence, the demand and penalty were set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414117