In absence of Cross Examination, statements used against appellants has to be discarded

Sohni Ceramics Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Appellants’ submission is that Order-in-Original dated 30.8.2018 confirmed duty demand without considering evidences in terms of the mandatory provisions under Section 9D of Central Excise Act 1944. There is no clear evidences of removal of goods from factory premises, except statements relied upon, whose examination/cross examination has not been allowed u/s 9D of Central Excise Act 1944. Invoices found are pink coloured [Duplicate for transporter], but it is not coming out from records that goods were actu

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.