https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121422 In a case involving fraudulent diversion of duty-free raw materials by a 100% EOU, the Tribunal upheld the excise duty demand, holding that the liability arose under excise law and that the customs tariff was relevant only for quantification. The challenge on limitation and the complaint that denial of cross-examination vitiated the proceedings were rejected, as the investigation was not confined to a single period and the partner's incriminating statement was not retracted. On penalty, the Tribunal sustained the partner's penalty because he was found instrumental in the diversion, but set aside the firm's penalty to avoid simultaneous punishment on both the firm and the partner. en-us Fri, 04 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:33:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121422 In a case involving fraudulent diversion of duty-free raw materials by a 100% EOU, the Tribunal upheld the excise duty demand, holding that the liability arose under excise law and that the customs tariff was relevant only for quantification. The challenge on limitation and the complaint that denial of cross-examination vitiated the proceedings were rejected, as the investigation was not confined to a single period and the partner's incriminating statement was not retracted. On penalty, the Tribunal sustained the partner's penalty because he was found instrumental in the diversion, but set aside the firm's penalty to avoid simultaneous punishment on both the firm and the partner. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121422