https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108250 Duty confirmation was held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority relied on a computation method not disclosed in the show cause notice, as this travelled beyond the notice and denied fair defence. Findings of clandestine manufacture and removal were also not sustained because private register entries, without corroborative evidence, were insufficient and the overlapping demand period was not properly addressed. The appellants' claims to SSI exemption and the benefit of section 4(4)(d)(ii) required consideration but were left unexamined. Penalty under Rule 209A was not justified without a clear finding on knowledge of the non-duty-paid nature of the goods. The adjudication was set aside and remanded for fresh decision after hearing the appellants. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:06:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108250 Duty confirmation was held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority relied on a computation method not disclosed in the show cause notice, as this travelled beyond the notice and denied fair defence. Findings of clandestine manufacture and removal were also not sustained because private register entries, without corroborative evidence, were insufficient and the overlapping demand period was not properly addressed. The appellants' claims to SSI exemption and the benefit of section 4(4)(d)(ii) required consideration but were left unexamined. Penalty under Rule 209A was not justified without a clear finding on knowledge of the non-duty-paid nature of the goods. The adjudication was set aside and remanded for fresh decision after hearing the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108250