https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43036 The Court held that ordering a re-assay of seized goods after completion of evidence in adjudication proceedings would be improper and prejudicial. It was deemed inappropriate for the adjudicating authority to direct fresh evidence collection, as it could undermine the evidence already presented and potentially manipulate the case against the petitioner. The judgment quashed the notice for re-assaying the goods, emphasizing the risk of prejudice and improper interference with the established evidence. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:25:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43036 The Court held that ordering a re-assay of seized goods after completion of evidence in adjudication proceedings would be improper and prejudicial. It was deemed inappropriate for the adjudicating authority to direct fresh evidence collection, as it could undermine the evidence already presented and potentially manipulate the case against the petitioner. The judgment quashed the notice for re-assaying the goods, emphasizing the risk of prejudice and improper interference with the established evidence. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 22 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43036