https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107311 Conflicting technical evidence on marketability required fair consideration of the assessee's defence, and denial of cross-examination of departmental experts could vitiate the adjudication. The record showed that the assessee had raised specific technical objections to the department's reports, but those objections were not properly examined before concluding that the product was dutiable. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked merely for non-compliance with a procedural declaration if the department already knew the relevant manufacturing facts and could reasonably infer the product's existence. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh decision after considering the assessee's evidence and objections. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:21:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107311 Conflicting technical evidence on marketability required fair consideration of the assessee's defence, and denial of cross-examination of departmental experts could vitiate the adjudication. The record showed that the assessee had raised specific technical objections to the department's reports, but those objections were not properly examined before concluding that the product was dutiable. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked merely for non-compliance with a procedural declaration if the department already knew the relevant manufacturing facts and could reasonably infer the product's existence. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh decision after considering the assessee's evidence and objections. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107311