https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772325 Statements recorded during excise investigation are not substantive evidence unless the admissibility safeguards in Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are followed, including examination of the maker as a witness where required. In the absence of that procedure, such statements cannot by themselves support a demand. The text also states that Cenvat credit claims should be assessed against invoices, RG records and vehicle particulars showing receipt and accounting of inputs, and that untested allegations of non-manufacture, fraud or fictitious transactions are insufficient to displace those documents. On that basis, the extended period is not sustainable unless suppression or fraudulent availment is established on material evidence. en-us Wed, 04 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jun 2025 08:32:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772325 Statements recorded during excise investigation are not substantive evidence unless the admissibility safeguards in Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are followed, including examination of the maker as a witness where required. In the absence of that procedure, such statements cannot by themselves support a demand. The text also states that Cenvat credit claims should be assessed against invoices, RG records and vehicle particulars showing receipt and accounting of inputs, and that untested allegations of non-manufacture, fraud or fictitious transactions are insufficient to displace those documents. On that basis, the extended period is not sustainable unless suppression or fraudulent availment is established on material evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772325