https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444301 CESTAT Chandigarh held that a demand of Cenvat credit, interest and penalties cannot be sustained where it rests mainly on third-party statements and the assessee is denied cross-examination. Statements recorded during investigation are not substantive evidence unless the statutory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act is followed. The Tribunal also noted that the documentary material produced by the assessees, including goods receipts, stock records, RG-23C Part I, banking records and monthly returns, was not properly considered, while the department produced no independent evidence of non-receipt of goods. On that basis, the demand and penalties were set aside. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444301 CESTAT Chandigarh held that a demand of Cenvat credit, interest and penalties cannot be sustained where it rests mainly on third-party statements and the assessee is denied cross-examination. Statements recorded during investigation are not substantive evidence unless the statutory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act is followed. The Tribunal also noted that the documentary material produced by the assessees, including goods receipts, stock records, RG-23C Part I, banking records and monthly returns, was not properly considered, while the department produced no independent evidence of non-receipt of goods. On that basis, the demand and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444301