https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756816 Denial of cross-examination under Section 9D makes investigation statements unusable where the demand is substantially based on those statements, as natural justice requires an opportunity to test their reliability. Clandestine removal cannot be proved merely from loose papers, sheets and dispatch chits that contain discrepancies or lack independent corroboration; supporting evidence such as transport records, buyer confirmation, raw material flow, production capacity, power use or manpower analysis is needed. When the duty demand fails on these grounds, consequential penalties on the firm and its partners also fail, including penalty on a partner where the firm's case is unsustainable. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Aug 2024 13:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756816 Denial of cross-examination under Section 9D makes investigation statements unusable where the demand is substantially based on those statements, as natural justice requires an opportunity to test their reliability. Clandestine removal cannot be proved merely from loose papers, sheets and dispatch chits that contain discrepancies or lack independent corroboration; supporting evidence such as transport records, buyer confirmation, raw material flow, production capacity, power use or manpower analysis is needed. When the duty demand fails on these grounds, consequential penalties on the firm and its partners also fail, including penalty on a partner where the firm's case is unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756816