https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759448 Statements recorded during excise investigation cannot sustain a duty demand unless the statutory safeguards on admissibility are followed and effective cross-examination is allowed. The text emphasises that Section 9D requires the adjudicating authority to examine the witness and decide admissibility before relying on such statements against the assessee, and failure to do so renders them unreliable. It further states that clandestine removal must be proved by cogent independent corroboration; uncorroborated statements, alleged shortage, and disputed retractions are insufficient. In the absence of positive supporting evidence, the duty demand and penalties could not survive. en-us Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2024 07:50:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759448 Statements recorded during excise investigation cannot sustain a duty demand unless the statutory safeguards on admissibility are followed and effective cross-examination is allowed. The text emphasises that Section 9D requires the adjudicating authority to examine the witness and decide admissibility before relying on such statements against the assessee, and failure to do so renders them unreliable. It further states that clandestine removal must be proved by cogent independent corroboration; uncorroborated statements, alleged shortage, and disputed retractions are insufficient. In the absence of positive supporting evidence, the duty demand and penalties could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759448