9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AVINDRAN AND MR. H.K. THAKUR, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S P Sheth (Adv.) For the Respondent : Shri S K Shukla (AR) ORDER Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; All these four appeals are disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the very same OIO. 2. The brief facts that arise for consideration in these cases is whether the main appellant M/s Union Quality Plastic Ltd has engaged himself in clandestine removal of finished goods which has been worked out upon the shortage of raw material /finished goods during the visit of the preventive officers. 3. Ld Counsel at the outset submits that instead of going into merits, the issue needs to be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Authority only on the ground of the denial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a authorised persons of the assessee. Hence no further discussion on this point. Even, since they have not justified their claim for cross examination, denial thereof does not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Although during the personal hearing the Ld Counsel Shri Vyas has not claimed for examination of the officers of panchas. I have also given due consideration to the facts and position of present case. Further as regards their contention that the inquiry was not conducted with the buyers, it may be mentioned that when the authorised persons and Director of the assessee themselves admitted the shortages and confirmed the illicit removal of such short found goods, there is no need to make further probe with the buyers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or refused before final order was passed. When the petitioners prayed for cross-examination and reasonably expected that the same would be granted, they cannot be expected to participate in the adjudicating proceedings up to the final stage. In other words, without dealing with and disposing of the petitioners application for cross-examination, the adjudicating authority could not have finally adjudicated the issues. If he was of the opinion that the request for cross-examination was not tenable, by giving reasons, he could have rejected it. We wonder what would have happened, if he was inclined to accept such a request. In such a situation, he himself could not have finally disposed of the show cause notice proceedings. In either case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
