https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107074 Maltodextrin was held not to justify the demand, because the record did not support misdeclaration and the assessee's classification under Chapter 29 was supported by the certificate relied upon for the relevant period; the demand was therefore set aside. Maltodex, however, could not be finally classified on the existing record because the chemical test report was furnished only after the hearing, denying effective rebuttal. The connected issues of duty, valuation, marketability and Modvat credit were also not properly examined and were remitted for de novo adjudication after full opportunity to meet the evidence. en-us Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:31:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107074 Maltodextrin was held not to justify the demand, because the record did not support misdeclaration and the assessee's classification under Chapter 29 was supported by the certificate relied upon for the relevant period; the demand was therefore set aside. Maltodex, however, could not be finally classified on the existing record because the chemical test report was furnished only after the hearing, denying effective rebuttal. The connected issues of duty, valuation, marketability and Modvat credit were also not properly examined and were remitted for de novo adjudication after full opportunity to meet the evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107074