#Section 9D Central Excise Act

CESTAT Ahmedabad sets aside penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002, ruling that statements alone are insufficient for imposing penalties without corroborative evidence and explicit invocation of the penal clause. The decision underscores the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in excise penalty proceedings, impacting manufacturers and corporate officers facing similar allegations.

CESTAT Chandigarh rules that denying an assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements form the basis of a tax demand violates natural justice and Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The ruling reinforces procedural safeguards in quasi-judicial proceedings, impacting tax assessments and CENVAT credit disputes.