https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442940 Retracted investigation statements cannot support excise duty demands unless admitted in evidence in compliance with Section 9D and supported by independent corroboration. The article further notes that the presence of packing machines, without proof that they were operational or used for clandestine manufacture, is insufficient to establish duty liability. On that basis, the deeming duty mechanism under Rule 18(2) of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty Rules, 2010 could not be invoked for the relevant period, and penalty under Rule 18(1) read with Section 11AC also failed because the underlying demand was not sustained. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Sep 2023 13:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442940 Retracted investigation statements cannot support excise duty demands unless admitted in evidence in compliance with Section 9D and supported by independent corroboration. The article further notes that the presence of packing machines, without proof that they were operational or used for clandestine manufacture, is insufficient to establish duty liability. On that basis, the deeming duty mechanism under Rule 18(2) of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty Rules, 2010 could not be invoked for the relevant period, and penalty under Rule 18(1) read with Section 11AC also failed because the underlying demand was not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442940