https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73737 Denial of cross-examination of panch witnesses and another witness whose statements formed the basis of confiscation and penalty vitiated the adjudication. The Tribunal held that, even though strict rules of evidence do not apply, a reasonable opportunity to defend includes cross-examination where the request is relevant, genuine and necessary to meet the allegations. Because the appellant's request was directly connected to the defence that the seized kada was an ornament and not primary gold, and the refusal rested on irrelevant considerations, the adjudication breached natural justice. The confiscation and penalty orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after cross-examination. en-us Mon, 21 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73737 Denial of cross-examination of panch witnesses and another witness whose statements formed the basis of confiscation and penalty vitiated the adjudication. The Tribunal held that, even though strict rules of evidence do not apply, a reasonable opportunity to defend includes cross-examination where the request is relevant, genuine and necessary to meet the allegations. Because the appellant's request was directly connected to the defence that the seized kada was an ornament and not primary gold, and the refusal rested on irrelevant considerations, the adjudication breached natural justice. The confiscation and penalty orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after cross-examination. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 21 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73737