https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789359 Statements recorded during excise investigation are admissible only if the mandatory procedure under Section 9D is followed, including examination of the maker as a witness and compliance with the statutory safeguard before reliance is placed on the statement; otherwise, denial of cross-examination and evidentiary reliance is impermissible. Allegations of clandestine procurement, manufacture, and clearance must be supported by tangible, corroborative evidence such as reliable records, excess stock, or independent material, not suspicion or untested statements. Penalty under Rule 26 requires a prior finding that the goods were liable to confiscation; without that foundational finding, the penalty cannot be sustained. en-us Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789359 Statements recorded during excise investigation are admissible only if the mandatory procedure under Section 9D is followed, including examination of the maker as a witness and compliance with the statutory safeguard before reliance is placed on the statement; otherwise, denial of cross-examination and evidentiary reliance is impermissible. Allegations of clandestine procurement, manufacture, and clearance must be supported by tangible, corroborative evidence such as reliable records, excess stock, or independent material, not suspicion or untested statements. Penalty under Rule 26 requires a prior finding that the goods were liable to confiscation; without that foundational finding, the penalty cannot be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789359