https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74698 Duty demand and penalty could not be sustained where the material used for quantification was not fully disclosed, the working of the demand was not made available, and cross-examination of material witnesses was denied; this breach of natural justice caused prejudice and vitiated the adjudication. The findings on manufacture and duty liability were also unsustainable because the evidence was misread or insufficient, including unsupported assumptions about power-based manufacture, misattribution of machinery and premises, and inclusion of non-dutiable items and post-manufacturing charges without proper examination. The adjudication order confirming duty and penalty was therefore set aside. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:48:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74698 Duty demand and penalty could not be sustained where the material used for quantification was not fully disclosed, the working of the demand was not made available, and cross-examination of material witnesses was denied; this breach of natural justice caused prejudice and vitiated the adjudication. The findings on manufacture and duty liability were also unsustainable because the evidence was misread or insufficient, including unsupported assumptions about power-based manufacture, misattribution of machinery and premises, and inclusion of non-dutiable items and post-manufacturing charges without proper examination. The adjudication order confirming duty and penalty was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74698