https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184234 A writ petition challenging excise duty, penalty and confiscation was held maintainable because the dispute raised a pure question of law on alleged breach of natural justice, and the alternative appeal remedy could not be effectively pressed at the final stage. On merits, refusal to allow cross-examination did not vitiate the orders where the adjudication rested on seized documents, ledgers, bills, stock records and payment particulars, together with a factual nexus between the petitioner and the marketing concerns. The allegation that statements were recorded under coercion also failed, as there was no retraction or other material proving threat or inducement, and statements recorded under statutory summons retained evidentiary value. en-us Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2016 16:32:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184234 A writ petition challenging excise duty, penalty and confiscation was held maintainable because the dispute raised a pure question of law on alleged breach of natural justice, and the alternative appeal remedy could not be effectively pressed at the final stage. On merits, refusal to allow cross-examination did not vitiate the orders where the adjudication rested on seized documents, ledgers, bills, stock records and payment particulars, together with a factual nexus between the petitioner and the marketing concerns. The allegation that statements were recorded under coercion also failed, as there was no retraction or other material proving threat or inducement, and statements recorded under statutory summons retained evidentiary value. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184234