https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177590 Concurrent findings sustaining wrongful availment of Cenvat credit and clandestine removal were based on investigation material, stock verification, transport records, panchanama, statements and production comparisons, and the High Court treated them as findings of fact not open to reappreciation in further appeal absent perversity or legal error. The court also held that a complaint of denial of cross-examination does not vitiate the findings unless actual prejudice is independently shown; on the record, the cumulative evidence was sufficient and no demonstrable prejudice was established. The challenge to the duty demand therefore failed. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:08:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177590 Concurrent findings sustaining wrongful availment of Cenvat credit and clandestine removal were based on investigation material, stock verification, transport records, panchanama, statements and production comparisons, and the High Court treated them as findings of fact not open to reappreciation in further appeal absent perversity or legal error. The court also held that a complaint of denial of cross-examination does not vitiate the findings unless actual prejudice is independently shown; on the record, the cumulative evidence was sufficient and no demonstrable prejudice was established. The challenge to the duty demand therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177590