https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265921 A penalty under Rule 209A was not finally sustained because the underlying adjudication had already been set aside for breach of natural justice. The Tribunal treated the impugned order as having merged with the earlier set-aside orders and as non est, noting that the appellant had also made un-retracted confessional statements linked to clandestine activity and undervaluation. The matter was therefore remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision on the evidence on record and after granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing, leaving the merits open. en-us Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:52:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265921 A penalty under Rule 209A was not finally sustained because the underlying adjudication had already been set aside for breach of natural justice. The Tribunal treated the impugned order as having merged with the earlier set-aside orders and as non est, noting that the appellant had also made un-retracted confessional statements linked to clandestine activity and undervaluation. The matter was therefore remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision on the evidence on record and after granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing, leaving the merits open. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265921