https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81178 The case pertains to the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance of structural items/rolled products by the appellant. The revenue's case rested solely on private records of a third party (billet manufacturer) and statements of persons who were not cross-examined. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence of clandestine manufacture of the appellant's final product, no evidence of receipt of sale proceeds, and no evidence of transport of allegedly clandestinely removed goods. The third party's statements, which formed the root of the evidence, could not be relied upon as cross-examination was not allowed as mandated u/s 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, th..... en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2024 08:24:59 +0530 Mon, 09 Sep 2024 08:24:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81178 The case pertains to the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance of structural items/rolled products by the appellant. The revenue's case rested solely on private records of a third party (billet manufacturer) and statements of persons who were not cross-examined. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence of clandestine manufacture of the appellant's final product, no evidence of receipt of sale proceeds, and no evidence of transport of allegedly clandestinely removed goods. The third party's statements, which formed the root of the evidence, could not be relied upon as cross-examination was not allowed as mandated u/s 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, th..... Highlights Central Excise Mon, 09 Sep 2024 08:24:59 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81178