https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336412 Effective cross-examination was found to have been afforded in the de novo proceedings, with the assessee's representatives participating and the record not supporting any denial of natural justice. Duty demand based on seized records, private documents, stock registers and statements was upheld because the material corroborated undervaluation and clandestine removal, and belated retractions did not displace otherwise reliable evidence. The small scale exemption claim was rejected because use of another's brand name had already been settled against the assessee, reinforcing the inference of duty evasion. On these findings, the de novo order, penalties and demand were sustained. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Sep 2017 12:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336412 Effective cross-examination was found to have been afforded in the de novo proceedings, with the assessee's representatives participating and the record not supporting any denial of natural justice. Duty demand based on seized records, private documents, stock registers and statements was upheld because the material corroborated undervaluation and clandestine removal, and belated retractions did not displace otherwise reliable evidence. The small scale exemption claim was rejected because use of another's brand name had already been settled against the assessee, reinforcing the inference of duty evasion. On these findings, the de novo order, penalties and demand were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336412