https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431855 A duty demand based on alleged stentering could not be sustained where adjudication relied on additional finishing processes and chapter classifications not specifically pleaded in the show cause notice and not supported by the record. Statements used by the revenue were also excluded because the deponents were not examined and cross-examination was denied in breach of section 9D; once excluded, the remaining evidence did not establish processing in the assessee's premises. As the duty demand failed, the consequential penalties on the assessee and its director also fell away. The impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Dec 2022 09:18:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431855 A duty demand based on alleged stentering could not be sustained where adjudication relied on additional finishing processes and chapter classifications not specifically pleaded in the show cause notice and not supported by the record. Statements used by the revenue were also excluded because the deponents were not examined and cross-examination was denied in breach of section 9D; once excluded, the remaining evidence did not establish processing in the assessee's premises. As the duty demand failed, the consequential penalties on the assessee and its director also fell away. The impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431855