Contemporaneous documents can bind a party, and exemption fails where receipt and use of cut-tobacco are not proved.

Contemporaneous documents prepared by or on behalf of a party and accepted by public authorities may be relied on against that party, and a later attempt to disown them will not defeat the demand where the documents support the Revenue's case. Denial of cross-examination is not fatal when the case does not rest on the disputed witness statements but on other admitted records. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 356/86-C.E. failed because the appellants did not establish that the cut-tobacco was duly received and used in cigarette manufacture. The duty demand and adverse findings were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand of duty on cut-tobacco was sustainable on the basis of the documents submitted at the sales tax barrier and the appellants could later disown those documents; (ii) whether denial of cross-examination of the truck drivers vitiated the proceedings and whether the benefit of Notification No. 356/86-C.E. dated 24-6-86 was available.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of duty on cut-tobacco was sustainable on the basis of the documents submitted at the sales tax barrier and the appellants could later disown those documents.

Analysis: The appellants accepted that Form XXV-A had been submitted at the sales tax post and that the forms described the consignment as cut-tobacco. The documents were prepared by or on behalf of the appellants and were accepted by the sales tax authorities. The plea that the entries were wrongly made to save sales tax could not assist the appellants when the same documents were relied upon by the Revenue. No corrective steps were taken before the sales tax authorities, and the contemporaneous documents supported the Revenue's case that the clearances were of cut-tobacco.

Conclusion: The duty demand based on the documents was sustainable and the appellants could not disown the forms.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination of the truck drivers vitiated the proceedings and whether the benefit of Notification No. 356/86-C.E. dated 24-6-86 was available.

Analysis: The Revenue did not rely on the drivers' statements, but on the forms signed by an officer of the appellant company, who admitted the facts in his statement. In these circumstances, denial of cross-examination of the drivers was not fatal. The claim for exemption was also not proved, because the appellants failed to establish that the disputed cut-tobacco had been duly received and used in the manufacture of cigarettes so as to attract the notification benefit.

Conclusion: Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the case, and the exemption benefit was not available.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on merits, and the duty demand and related adverse findings were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Contemporaneous documents prepared by or on behalf of a party and accepted by public authorities may be relied upon against that party, and a request for cross-examination does not vitiate proceedings where the adjudicating case does not rest on the disputed witness statement.

---