<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Section 9D compliance and corroborative evidence requirements defeated clandestine excise demand and penalties.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98544</link>
    <description>Section 9D compliance is mandatory before statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act can be relied on; where the maker is not first examined and the statement is not admitted in accordance with section 9D, denial of cross-examination does not cure the defect, and such statements cannot support the demand. Clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by positive, clinching corroborative evidence; in the absence of documentary support, excess inputs, unrecorded production, stock discrepancy, or transport records, the allegation failed. Penalty under rule 26 also could not stand without a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation, so the duty demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 9D compliance and corroborative evidence requirements defeated clandestine excise demand and penalties.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98544</link>
      <description>Section 9D compliance is mandatory before statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act can be relied on; where the maker is not first examined and the statement is not admitted in accordance with section 9D, denial of cross-examination does not cure the defect, and such statements cannot support the demand. Clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by positive, clinching corroborative evidence; in the absence of documentary support, excess inputs, unrecorded production, stock discrepancy, or transport records, the allegation failed. Penalty under rule 26 also could not stand without a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation, so the duty demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>