https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125380 Waiver of pre-deposit was refused because the appellant failed to show financial hardship or a strong prima facie case. The Tribunal treated the mobile call records and the customs officer's contemporaneous report as materially damaging evidence, sufficient to sustain the departmental case on a preponderance of probability. The objection that cross-examination was denied did not justify interference, and the adjudicating authority's findings on penalty were left undisturbed. The appeal was rejected on merits, with the Revenue's case sustained. en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:57:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125380 Waiver of pre-deposit was refused because the appellant failed to show financial hardship or a strong prima facie case. The Tribunal treated the mobile call records and the customs officer's contemporaneous report as materially damaging evidence, sufficient to sustain the departmental case on a preponderance of probability. The objection that cross-examination was denied did not justify interference, and the adjudicating authority's findings on penalty were left undisturbed. The appeal was rejected on merits, with the Revenue's case sustained. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125380