9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently grant four weeks’ time to the appellant to file a detailed reply. After receiving such detailed reply, the adjudicating authority shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing and come to conclusion on the matter and pass a reasoned order. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/10452,10453/2013-DB - Order No. A/10885-10886/2014 - Dated:- 1-5-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P.M. Dave, Adv. For the Respondent : Dr. Jeetesh Nagori, Addl.Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: M.V. Ravindran; 1. These two Stay Petitions are filed for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of duty liability confirmed by the adjudicating authority and the penalties imposed on the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile a detailed reply. He would then take us through the impugned order and draw our attention to Para 22.3 of the said order and submit that the appellants counsel was not heard on the first date as he did not given authorization and subsequently on 18.09.2012, on production of authorization, he was heard. He also submits that the ld.Consultant has reiterated the submissions filed vide letter dt.15.09.2012 which was an interim reply. It is his submission the adjudicating authority has not rejected nor allowed the cross-examination which itself is a violation of principles of natural justice. He would submit that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mahek Glazes Pvt. Ltd. Vs UoI - 2014 (300) ELT 25 (Guj.) has specifically dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided with the scanned one or two pages taken from the said registers/diaries. The said entries being third part details cannot be automatically be applied against us. The said entries have to be verified for its correctness before it can be relied upon for demanding any duty from us. Accordingly, we desire to cross examine the following persons, whose statements have been relied upon and the documents recovered from their premises have been considered as an evidence to sustain the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal by us. Shri Govindbhai Hirabhai Mytra, Proprietor of M/s Manish Auto, Keshod. Shri Nathubhai Gajera, Proprietor of M/s Parishram Marketing, Keshod. Shri Sabirbhai Yusufbhai Ghatkai, Proprietor of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the final order itself. Sum total of this discussion is that we are inclined to set-aside the impugned order and request the adjudicating authority to pass a separate order on the petitioners application/request letter for granting cross-examination of the named witnesses. We are conscious that the Commissioner has already decided such an issue, however, since we are quashing the order, this part of the order would also not survive and hence, the requirement of a fresh order. We are informed that the same officer continues to hold the office of the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Surat-II. It would therefore, be not necessary to separately hear the petition once again before passing any such order. This would, however, not prec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
