https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50863 The adjudication was found vulnerable because effective cross-examination was denied, depositions of witnesses were not properly dealt with, and material arising after the notice was relied upon. It was also noted that cum-duty price abatement had not been granted in line with settled valuation principles. Mandatory penalty and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB could not be applied to a demand period from March 1995 to August 1996, since those provisions came into force only on 28-9-1996. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration with an opportunity for further evidence and cross-examination. en-us Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:08:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50863 The adjudication was found vulnerable because effective cross-examination was denied, depositions of witnesses were not properly dealt with, and material arising after the notice was relied upon. It was also noted that cum-duty price abatement had not been granted in line with settled valuation principles. Mandatory penalty and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB could not be applied to a demand period from March 1995 to August 1996, since those provisions came into force only on 28-9-1996. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration with an opportunity for further evidence and cross-examination. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50863