https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94630 Clandestine removal allegations required a complete de novo remand because the quantity and value of the offending clearances had to be freshly determined before duty liability could be settled. Penalty under Rule 173Q, being linked to the value of the offending goods, could not be fixed independently until the duty and valuation issues were re-adjudicated. A full rehearing with a speaking order and opportunity of hearing was therefore necessary, and partial final determination was inappropriate. en-us Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:13:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94630 Clandestine removal allegations required a complete de novo remand because the quantity and value of the offending clearances had to be freshly determined before duty liability could be settled. Penalty under Rule 173Q, being linked to the value of the offending goods, could not be fixed independently until the duty and valuation issues were re-adjudicated. A full rehearing with a speaking order and opportunity of hearing was therefore necessary, and partial final determination was inappropriate. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94630