https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795029 Cross-examination of persons whose statements support a clandestine-removal allegation is a permissible means to dispute alleged admissions, even without formal retraction. Rejecting that request without communicating the rejection or allowing a further effective reply breaches audi alteram partem and denies a reasonable opportunity of defence. The clandestine-removal demand was therefore not established and was set aside. The same procedural defect deprived the penalised individuals of a fair opportunity to defend, so their penalties were also unsustainable. Remand was considered purposeless because of the age of the alleged activity. en-us Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:07:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795029 Cross-examination of persons whose statements support a clandestine-removal allegation is a permissible means to dispute alleged admissions, even without formal retraction. Rejecting that request without communicating the rejection or allowing a further effective reply breaches audi alteram partem and denies a reasonable opportunity of defence. The clandestine-removal demand was therefore not established and was set aside. The same procedural defect deprived the penalised individuals of a fair opportunity to defend, so their penalties were also unsustainable. Remand was considered purposeless because of the age of the alleged activity. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795029