https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94826 Contemporaneous admissions made during investigation established that the assessee was assembling computer systems at its premises, and the later retractions were delayed and unsupported; the activity was therefore treated as manufacture liable to central excise duty. A denial of cross-examination and the complaint of non-supply of documents did not vitiate the adjudication because prejudice was not shown and the relied upon documents had been furnished with the show cause notice. The duty demand, confiscation and penalties were sustained, and the appeals failed. The stated principle is that credible contemporaneous admissions can prove manufacture, while procedural objections do not invalidate proceedings absent demonstrated prejudice. en-us Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:06:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94826 Contemporaneous admissions made during investigation established that the assessee was assembling computer systems at its premises, and the later retractions were delayed and unsupported; the activity was therefore treated as manufacture liable to central excise duty. A denial of cross-examination and the complaint of non-supply of documents did not vitiate the adjudication because prejudice was not shown and the relied upon documents had been furnished with the show cause notice. The duty demand, confiscation and penalties were sustained, and the appeals failed. The stated principle is that credible contemporaneous admissions can prove manufacture, while procedural objections do not invalidate proceedings absent demonstrated prejudice. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94826