https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94597 The Tribunal held in favor of the appellants on multiple issues. Firstly, it ruled that the Assistant Director lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice, emphasizing the need for proper adjudication on this fundamental question. Secondly, it found that the exclusion of electricity consumption in determining tread rubber production violated natural justice principles and directed a reconsideration with consistent criteria. Thirdly, the Tribunal determined a breach of natural justice due to the denial of cross-examination, leading to the setting aside of the order. Lastly, inconsistencies in norms for assessing clandestine activities led to the annulment of the order, with directions for a fresh evaluation considering relevant factors. en-us Sat, 09 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:13:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94597 The Tribunal held in favor of the appellants on multiple issues. Firstly, it ruled that the Assistant Director lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice, emphasizing the need for proper adjudication on this fundamental question. Secondly, it found that the exclusion of electricity consumption in determining tread rubber production violated natural justice principles and directed a reconsideration with consistent criteria. Thirdly, the Tribunal determined a breach of natural justice due to the denial of cross-examination, leading to the setting aside of the order. Lastly, inconsistencies in norms for assessing clandestine activities led to the annulment of the order, with directions for a fresh evaluation considering relevant factors. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 09 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94597