https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48488 A writ challenge to duty demand, confiscation and penalty failed where the plea that only 11 computers had been cleared was raised for the first time at the appellate stage and not before the original authority. The Court noted that the petitioner had delayed the adjudication proceedings and later approached the Court after further delay. On the available records, including invoices showing clearance of 23 computers with accessories, the adjudicating authority had sufficient material to decide the matter. In these circumstances, no procedural unfairness or factual basis was shown to justify interference or remand, and the demand and consequential order were upheld. en-us Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:45:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48488 A writ challenge to duty demand, confiscation and penalty failed where the plea that only 11 computers had been cleared was raised for the first time at the appellate stage and not before the original authority. The Court noted that the petitioner had delayed the adjudication proceedings and later approached the Court after further delay. On the available records, including invoices showing clearance of 23 computers with accessories, the adjudicating authority had sufficient material to decide the matter. In these circumstances, no procedural unfairness or factual basis was shown to justify interference or remand, and the demand and consequential order were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48488