https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90672 Cross-examination was required because the demand substantially relied on third-party and expert statements concerning raw-material records, moisture content and recovery percentages. The majority found that denying examination of those witnesses, despite uncertainty over determining bagasse pulp content from finished paper samples, undermined fair adjudication. It also found that material objections on record-keeping, provisional assessments and reopening had not been fully addressed. The impugned duty, confiscation and penalty order was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after cross-examination and fresh findings. A dissenting view considered the exemption unavailable and upheld limitation, penalty and confiscation. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:55:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90672 Cross-examination was required because the demand substantially relied on third-party and expert statements concerning raw-material records, moisture content and recovery percentages. The majority found that denying examination of those witnesses, despite uncertainty over determining bagasse pulp content from finished paper samples, undermined fair adjudication. It also found that material objections on record-keeping, provisional assessments and reopening had not been fully addressed. The impugned duty, confiscation and penalty order was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after cross-examination and fresh findings. A dissenting view considered the exemption unavailable and upheld limitation, penalty and confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90672