https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754013 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustained because the appellant did not participate in adjudication despite repeated opportunities, made no effective written submission, did not seek cross-examination at the proper stage, and did not retract the statements relied upon. On those facts, the Tribunal held that a party who avoids the adjudicatory process cannot later defeat the penalty by raising a purely technical objection that Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not complied with. The challenge based on denial of cross-examination therefore failed and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 14 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:20:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754013 Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustained because the appellant did not participate in adjudication despite repeated opportunities, made no effective written submission, did not seek cross-examination at the proper stage, and did not retract the statements relied upon. On those facts, the Tribunal held that a party who avoids the adjudicatory process cannot later defeat the penalty by raising a purely technical objection that Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not complied with. The challenge based on denial of cross-examination therefore failed and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754013