https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119240 Recovery and admission of parallel invoices, supported by seized records and variations in declared value, sustained the duty demand for clandestine clearance because the goods were not reflected in the regular books and the parallel invoicing showed suppression of true value. The objection based on denial of cross-examination did not displace the direct documentary evidence. Penalties under Section 11AC, Rule 173Q and Rule 209A were set aside because the duty had been paid before the show cause notice, Rule 173Q was invoked without specifying the exact contravened clause, and the Director's penalty could not stand once the connected issue was decided in the assessee's favour. en-us Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:17:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119240 Recovery and admission of parallel invoices, supported by seized records and variations in declared value, sustained the duty demand for clandestine clearance because the goods were not reflected in the regular books and the parallel invoicing showed suppression of true value. The objection based on denial of cross-examination did not displace the direct documentary evidence. Penalties under Section 11AC, Rule 173Q and Rule 209A were set aside because the duty had been paid before the show cause notice, Rule 173Q was invoked without specifying the exact contravened clause, and the Director's penalty could not stand once the connected issue was decided in the assessee's favour. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119240