https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31736 Duty demand for alleged misdeclaration of flush doors as panel or baton doors was sustained only for the specific clearances to identified customers, because written supply orders, statements, and seizure-related material corroborated those transactions. Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the finding on those proved clearances, since the evidentiary basis was sufficient. However, the same inference could not be extended to all other customers and clearances during the dispute period, as the Revenue had not made wider enquiries and there was contrary material showing manufacture and declaration of panel doors and baton doors. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh quantification of duty and recomputation of penalties limited to proved clearances. en-us Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31736 Duty demand for alleged misdeclaration of flush doors as panel or baton doors was sustained only for the specific clearances to identified customers, because written supply orders, statements, and seizure-related material corroborated those transactions. Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the finding on those proved clearances, since the evidentiary basis was sufficient. However, the same inference could not be extended to all other customers and clearances during the dispute period, as the Revenue had not made wider enquiries and there was contrary material showing manufacture and declaration of panel doors and baton doors. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh quantification of duty and recomputation of penalties limited to proved clearances. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31736