https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94389 Duty demand and penalty based on alleged misdescription of yarn were set aside for fresh consideration because the adjudicating authority had relied on technical material and third-party discussions not disclosed to the assessee, denying an opportunity to rebut the evidence. The record therefore required de novo examination of the documentary material and any additional evidence. By contrast, confiscation of the seized yarn and the redemption fine were upheld because the statutory and private records showed deliberate recording of the goods as plain yarn, and the Tribunal found the discrepancy was not a mere clerical error. en-us Fri, 08 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:32:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94389 Duty demand and penalty based on alleged misdescription of yarn were set aside for fresh consideration because the adjudicating authority had relied on technical material and third-party discussions not disclosed to the assessee, denying an opportunity to rebut the evidence. The record therefore required de novo examination of the documentary material and any additional evidence. By contrast, confiscation of the seized yarn and the redemption fine were upheld because the statutory and private records showed deliberate recording of the goods as plain yarn, and the Tribunal found the discrepancy was not a mere clerical error. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94389