https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422213 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be sustained on statements and third-party documents alone where clandestine removal is not independently corroborated. The record showed no search or recovery from the assessee's premises, and no independent evidence of excess production, procurement, transport, receipt of sale proceeds, or other material ordinarily needed to establish clandestine clearance. The statements relied on did not amount to a clear admission, and the request for cross-examination brought Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 into focus. In the absence of cogent corroboration, the evidentiary basis for penalty failed and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Mon, 02 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2022 08:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422213 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be sustained on statements and third-party documents alone where clandestine removal is not independently corroborated. The record showed no search or recovery from the assessee's premises, and no independent evidence of excess production, procurement, transport, receipt of sale proceeds, or other material ordinarily needed to establish clandestine clearance. The statements relied on did not amount to a clear admission, and the request for cross-examination brought Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 into focus. In the absence of cogent corroboration, the evidentiary basis for penalty failed and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422213