https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774343 Material collected by income-tax authorities could not, by itself, sustain a central excise demand for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal. Statements recorded under the Income-tax Act were usable only in proceedings under that Act, and the section 14 statement under the Central Excise Act was not admissible because section 9D procedure had not been followed. In the absence of independent excise investigation proving manufacture, liable person, duty measure and rate, the duty demand, interest and penalty failed. Personal penalties on co-noticees also failed because the cited rules apply to persons dealing with goods liable to confiscation or, under the 2002 Rules, invoice-related misuse not alleged here. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 14:36:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774343 Material collected by income-tax authorities could not, by itself, sustain a central excise demand for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal. Statements recorded under the Income-tax Act were usable only in proceedings under that Act, and the section 14 statement under the Central Excise Act was not admissible because section 9D procedure had not been followed. In the absence of independent excise investigation proving manufacture, liable person, duty measure and rate, the duty demand, interest and penalty failed. Personal penalties on co-noticees also failed because the cited rules apply to persons dealing with goods liable to confiscation or, under the 2002 Rules, invoice-related misuse not alleged here. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774343