Adjudication set aside; Rule 9 valuation based on internet engineer report quashed for Rule 3(4) non-compliance; Section 138B cross-examination required

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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.....