https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90527 The demand and penal consequences could not be sustained without first examining the assessee's claim that the disputed items were bought-out goods and not manufactured by them. That factual controversy was central because the department's case depended on an assumption of manufacture, yet the original order had not addressed the documentary material supporting the assessee's claim. The matter was remitted for de novo adjudication, with directions to give the assessee a proper hearing and to pass a fresh speaking order. The scope of Notification No. 162/86-C.E. was left open for consideration in the remand proceedings. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:35:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90527 The demand and penal consequences could not be sustained without first examining the assessee's claim that the disputed items were bought-out goods and not manufactured by them. That factual controversy was central because the department's case depended on an assumption of manufacture, yet the original order had not addressed the documentary material supporting the assessee's claim. The matter was remitted for de novo adjudication, with directions to give the assessee a proper hearing and to pass a fresh speaking order. The scope of Notification No. 162/86-C.E. was left open for consideration in the remand proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90527