Denial of cross-examination and vague notice defeated the substitution allegation where evidence remained inconclusive.

Denial of inspection of relied-upon documents and refusal of cross-examination, combined with a vague show-cause notice, undermined the demand. The record was also found insufficient to conclusively prove substitution of tobacco, and the weight variation between stock-taking and release was consistent with the explanation of moisture absorption due to heavy rain. On that material, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and the adverse order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and adverse finding against the appellant could be sustained in the face of denial of inspection of relied-upon documents, denial of cross-examination, vagueness in the show-cause notice, and an evidentiary record insufficient to conclusively establish substitution of tobacco.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant was not given inspection of the documents relied upon by the Collector and was denied cross-examination of the concerned officer. The notice was not sufficiently specific, and the variation in weight between stock-taking and release from detention supported the explanation that moisture absorption due to heavy rain had affected the goods. On the material available, the charge of substitution of tobacco could not be conclusively established.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and the Collector's order was set aside.

---