2006 (4) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. These stay applications are directed against the adjudication order dated 31-5-05 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded about Rs. 2.2 crores by way of duty from the first appellant, M/s. Everest Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Indore and imposed penalties on the first appellant as well as the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty demand and penalties result from such finding. 4. The contention of the appellant before us is that the impugned order has been passed without giving the appellant proper opportunity for cross-examination of persons and for that reason the orders are not sustainable. The Id. Counsel has also submitted that part of goods (24,900 Kg.) of plastic tubes and rolls had been sent under CT-3 withou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ination, it is being pointed out that the adjudicating authority had summoned the parties and they were present also but the appellant failed to attend cross-examination and sought adjournment. 6. Prima facie, the Revenue has a strong case. The goods manufactured by the appellants were liable to duty had they not been disposed of through export. In the present case, while the appellant s record .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X