https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256704 Where the Department relies on dealers' statements to allege unauthorised brand-name use, Section 9D of the Central Excise Act requires cross-examination of those third parties before such evidence can be used against the assessee. The surrounding circumstances were found insufficient on their own to prove use of the brand name during the relevant period, and the denied cross-examination rendered the evidentiary foundation unsustainable. The duty demand and connected penalties were set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with an opportunity of hearing and cross-examination of the dealers. en-us Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256704 Where the Department relies on dealers' statements to allege unauthorised brand-name use, Section 9D of the Central Excise Act requires cross-examination of those third parties before such evidence can be used against the assessee. The surrounding circumstances were found insufficient on their own to prove use of the brand name during the relevant period, and the denied cross-examination rendered the evidentiary foundation unsustainable. The duty demand and connected penalties were set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with an opportunity of hearing and cross-examination of the dealers. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256704