https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217398 Denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements formed the basis of a clandestine removal case undermined the evidentiary value of those statements, so the duty demand and related transporter penalty were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. Consequential confiscation of currency and gutka pouches, being dependent on the disputed demand, was also set aside for reconsideration on remand. The document further notes that confiscation and penalty for seized supari were unjustified where no Rule 25 contravention was established, and that Rule 26 penalty could not be imposed for alleged fabrication of documents to explain cash because such conduct did not involve dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation. en-us Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217398 Denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements formed the basis of a clandestine removal case undermined the evidentiary value of those statements, so the duty demand and related transporter penalty were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. Consequential confiscation of currency and gutka pouches, being dependent on the disputed demand, was also set aside for reconsideration on remand. The document further notes that confiscation and penalty for seized supari were unjustified where no Rule 25 contravention was established, and that Rule 26 penalty could not be imposed for alleged fabrication of documents to explain cash because such conduct did not involve dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217398