https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167518 In adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, fairness required allowing cross-examination of mahazar witnesses where the Department relied on the mahazar to prove seizure from the business premises and to sustain a charge of non-accountal. The place of recovery was a material fact, as the respondent contended that the gold ornaments were seized from his residence rather than his business premises. Because the mahazar was a contemporaneous document central to establishing the charge, the respondent had to be given an opportunity to test its contents through cross-examination of the witnesses. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication after granting that opportunity. en-us Fri, 29 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:58:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167518 In adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, fairness required allowing cross-examination of mahazar witnesses where the Department relied on the mahazar to prove seizure from the business premises and to sustain a charge of non-accountal. The place of recovery was a material fact, as the respondent contended that the gold ornaments were seized from his residence rather than his business premises. Because the mahazar was a contemporaneous document central to establishing the charge, the respondent had to be given an opportunity to test its contents through cross-examination of the witnesses. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication after granting that opportunity. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167518