9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 years. During the said period, the Commissioner could have called the witnesses for cross examination and could have completed the adjudication process well within time instead of justifying his action, on the ground that it was the appellants themselves who dropped the cross examination request - Therefore, impugned order is set aside once again and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for affording the cross examination of the said 5 witnesses, whose address stand given by the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. 1531 of 2011 - EX[DB] - ORDER NO. A/ 58307 /2013-Ex(DB) - Dated:- 18-11-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate For the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was taken note of on the last occasion and the Revenue was directed to produce the record of the hearing held on 23.12.05. 5. Ongoing through the said records, we find that it stand recorded as under: 3. Shri Shukla advocate to Shri U S Sitani, noticee requested that one more attempt may kindly be made to summon the witnesses. If they do appear on next date fixed, they will not insist on cross examination of these witnesses and they would file the final written submissions before the next date of hearing and effectively argue the case. The said paragraph recorded during the course of personal hearing is being interpreted by the Revenue as if the appellants have dropped their request for cross examination of the balance wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we are not in agreement with the Revenue s contention that appellants dropped their request for cross examination. 8. Otherwise, also we also note that Tribunal vide their earlier order dated 11.3.02 directed the adjudicating authority for allowing the appellants to cross examine the remaining witnesses whose permission has already been given by the adjudicating authority himself. With these observations Tribunal remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for doing the needful. As such, it was obligatory on the part of the Commissioner to allow cross examination of all the witnesses, as directed by the Tribunal. Otherwise also, we feel personal hearing conducted in December, 2005 which the Revenue is strongly relying for justifying n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 10. Learned advocate further makes it clear that they do not intend to cross examine Shri Bishandas Chowdhary appearing at S.No.3 above and intend to cross examine only other 5 witnesses. According to the appellant, the said witnesses are available. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order once again and remand the mater to the Commissioner for affording the cross examination of the said 5 witnesses, whose address stand given by the appellant. The appellants also undertake to help the Revenue in ensuring the attendance of the said witnesses. We are also aware of the fact that matter is quite old and needs to be given preference and the Commissioner would re-adjudicate the matter as soon as possibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
