https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790285 Statements recorded during excise investigation cannot be relied upon to prove their contents in adjudication unless the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act is followed, including examination of the maker as a witness and a judicial decision on admissibility. On that basis, statements of employees and a director could not sustain denial of CENVAT credit. The extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) was also unavailable because the relevant facts were already reflected in balance sheets and ER-1 returns, and the department did not establish actionable suppression. As a result, the demand for credit, interest and penalties was set aside. en-us Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Apr 2026 11:56:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790285 Statements recorded during excise investigation cannot be relied upon to prove their contents in adjudication unless the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act is followed, including examination of the maker as a witness and a judicial decision on admissibility. On that basis, statements of employees and a director could not sustain denial of CENVAT credit. The extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) was also unavailable because the relevant facts were already reflected in balance sheets and ER-1 returns, and the department did not establish actionable suppression. As a result, the demand for credit, interest and penalties was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790285