https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45820 Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act did not bar reliance on the material considered by the excise authorities because the statement recorded during the surprise check was treated as an explanation, not a confession, and coercion was not proved. The departmental action was also supported by independent material, including the written admission of shortage, repeated admissions at the hearing, and the inability to link excess stock with any permit. As the proceedings were departmental and quasi-judicial rather than a trial before a court, strict application of section 25 was not attracted, and the excise officer was not treated as a police officer for this purpose. The demand, confiscation, and penalty were sustained. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:52:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45820 Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act did not bar reliance on the material considered by the excise authorities because the statement recorded during the surprise check was treated as an explanation, not a confession, and coercion was not proved. The departmental action was also supported by independent material, including the written admission of shortage, repeated admissions at the hearing, and the inability to link excess stock with any permit. As the proceedings were departmental and quasi-judicial rather than a trial before a court, strict application of section 25 was not attracted, and the excise officer was not treated as a police officer for this purpose. The demand, confiscation, and penalty were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45820