https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93158 CESTAT set aside the impugned adjudication and allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication; the Tribunal found the assessable value improperly re-determined under Rule 9 based on a Chartered Engineer's internet-derived valuation and noted substantial variance between two engineer reports, neither subjected to cross-examination. Non-compliance with Rule 3(4) was identified and the absence of opportunity to controvert or cross-examine the report author rendered the conclusion untenable. The original adjudicating authority is directed to revisit the show-cause notice, afford the noticee full opportunity to controvert evidence, and ensure any expert or report relied upon is made available for cross-examination in accordance with Section 138B. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:19 +0530 Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93158 CESTAT set aside the impugned adjudication and allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication; the Tribunal found the assessable value improperly re-determined under Rule 9 based on a Chartered Engineer's internet-derived valuation and noted substantial variance between two engineer reports, neither subjected to cross-examination. Non-compliance with Rule 3(4) was identified and the absence of opportunity to controvert or cross-examine the report author rendered the conclusion untenable. The original adjudicating authority is directed to revisit the show-cause notice, afford the noticee full opportunity to controvert evidence, and ensure any expert or report relied upon is made available for cross-examination in accordance with Section 138B. Highlights Customs Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:45:19 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93158