https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219331 At the stay stage, the Tribunal held that allegations of fictitious manufacture, claimed exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., and the risk of double recovery against both the manufacturer and buyers raised factual issues needing full examination at final hearing. It treated the denial of cross-examination as not decisive for complete waiver at this interim stage because the relied-upon statements were of the manufacturer's employees and could be addressed in the reply to the show-cause notice. Full waiver of pre-deposit was declined, and only a partial pre-deposit was directed with waiver of the balance and consequential stay, subject to compliance by the principal appellant. en-us Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219331 At the stay stage, the Tribunal held that allegations of fictitious manufacture, claimed exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., and the risk of double recovery against both the manufacturer and buyers raised factual issues needing full examination at final hearing. It treated the denial of cross-examination as not decisive for complete waiver at this interim stage because the relied-upon statements were of the manufacturer's employees and could be addressed in the reply to the show-cause notice. Full waiver of pre-deposit was declined, and only a partial pre-deposit was directed with waiver of the balance and consequential stay, subject to compliance by the principal appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219331