https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441076 Central excise duty could not be sustained where the adjudication relied on incomplete records, uncorroborated witness statements and no effective opportunity of cross-examination, and the available invoices did not clearly establish manufacture or clandestine removal. The penalties under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A failed with the duty demand because they rested on the same unproven allegations. Interest was also held unsustainable for an earlier period because Section 11AB was not in force at the relevant time, and retrospective levy was rejected. The entire duty, penalty and interest liability was annulled. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2023 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441076 Central excise duty could not be sustained where the adjudication relied on incomplete records, uncorroborated witness statements and no effective opportunity of cross-examination, and the available invoices did not clearly establish manufacture or clandestine removal. The penalties under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A failed with the duty demand because they rested on the same unproven allegations. Interest was also held unsustainable for an earlier period because Section 11AB was not in force at the relevant time, and retrospective levy was rejected. The entire duty, penalty and interest liability was annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441076