9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time we felt that the matter itself can be disposed of on the limited issue. Accordingly, amount required to be deposited for the purpose of hearing the appeal is dispensed with and appeal was taken up for regular hearing with the consent of both sides. 3. Shri Shiva Das appearing for the appellants submitted that the matter is coming up before the Tribunal for a second time. Earlier the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority as per Order Nos. 2033-2046/96, dated 8-10-1996 with specific directions on two points. Shri Shiva Das submitted that request for cross-examination has not been acceded to and this aspect has been dealt with by the Tribunal in Para-5 of the order. He also submitted that there was a specific di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absolutely no evidence brought on record that it was because of the mistake on the part of the appellants that the witnesses could not be cross-examined. On the contrary there is absolutely no evidence brought on record that the adjudicating authority had kept the witnesses present during the personal hearing for cross-examination of the persons from whom statements have been obtained. The evidence on record goes to show that the appellants were not given the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses. Thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice as pleaded by the appellants in this regard also. It is further seen that the adjudicating authority had taken into consideration different norms for different periods for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand. It is open to the appellants to adduce all evidences as are available to them under law during the de novo proceedings. 4. Shri Shiva Das contended that the assessing authority has not made even an attempt to call the witness to cross-examination as can be seen from the impugned order. Straight away he has rejected the request of cross-examination on the ground that 15 years have already been lapsed. 5. With reference to the electricity consumption the matter has not been dealt with as directed by the Tribunal. In this context he drew our attention to para 9.3 of the impugned order. In that para it was observed that whereas the production of tread rubber accounted in the statutory records of the factory are 1,26,567 Kg. and 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee that the direction of the Tribunal has not been complied with. It was also submitted, assuming that the figures in RG 1 exceeds norms for the two years, there was no justification for not taking the electricity figures for the remaining years. Since cogent reasons are not forthcoming for rejecting the electricity consumption as basis in determining the quantum of production, we are of the view that this matter will have to go back for reconsideration. In the view we have taken we are remanding the matter to the concerned Commissioner to decide the issue afresh and to follow the directions of the Tribunal in passing the order in accordance with law. Since the matter being an old one, Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
