Cross-examination and comparable invoice valuation did not unsettle a duty demand backed by recovered records.

Where duty demand is supported by documentary material recovered from the assessee's premises and a buyer's premises, the demand is not displaced merely because cross-examination of former employees or panch witnesses is sought. The article also notes that, if the assessee does not cooperate in investigation and fails to supply relevant particulars, valuation may properly be based on comparable invoices rather than the claimed transaction value. On that reasoning, the challenge to the duty demand, valuation, confiscation-related consequences, and penalties failed, and the adjudication findings were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty, valuation of the cleared goods, and penalties on the noticees were liable to be interfered with on the grounds of denial of cross-examination and challenge to the method of valuation.

Analysis: The appeal was founded mainly on the request for cross-examination of former employees and panch witnesses and on the objection that valuation was not made on actual transaction value. The record showed, however, that the show-cause notice was not based only on statements but also on documentary material recovered from the appellants' premises and from a buyer's premises. The valuation was made on the basis of comparable invoices because the appellants had not cooperated during investigation and had not furnished the relevant particulars. In these circumstances, the reliance on cross-examination alone did not dislodge the findings, and the use of comparable invoices for assessment was held to be proper.

Conclusion: The challenge to the duty demand, valuation, confiscation-related consequences, and penalties failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the adjudication findings and dismissed the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the demand is supported by recovered records and the assessee does not cooperate in investigation, assessment may validly be made on comparable invoice values and the order is not vitiated merely because cross-examination of unavailable former employees is sought.

---