https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780785 SC dismissed the SLP and upheld the HC Division Bench's order. The HC had found clandestine removal of inputs/raw materials as defined under Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and that respondents could not satisfactorily account for transportation/receipt of such materials, constituting a violation of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The HC relied on unretracted statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and its well-reasoned findings were left undisturbed by the SC. en-us Mon, 03 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2025 08:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780785 SC dismissed the SLP and upheld the HC Division Bench's order. The HC had found clandestine removal of inputs/raw materials as defined under Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and that respondents could not satisfactorily account for transportation/receipt of such materials, constituting a violation of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The HC relied on unretracted statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and its well-reasoned findings were left undisturbed by the SC. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780785