Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
In a CESTAT appeal concerning alleged misdeclaration of imported oil, the tribunal held that inconclusive CRCL chemical reports indicating only some characteristics of base oil, and reliance on a single parameter (viscosity index) while omitting other essential parameters, were insufficient to sustain reclassification, revaluation or penalties; tentative wording ('may be') cannot replace categorical evidence. The adjudicating authority's refusal to examine or permit cross examination of the chemical examiner breached natural justice, so the benefit of doubt was accorded to the importers and the impugned adjudication was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.