9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilender Kumar Singhal, Senior Sales Officer of BAPL. It is admitted fact that appellants sought cross examination of the third parties whose statements has been relied by the Adjudicating Authority but the Adjudicating Authority has not granted cross examination which is in gross violation of principal of natural justice - Therefore for fair trial, the matter requires cross examination of the person whose statements have been relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority. With these observation, we are of the view that after setting aside the impugned order, the matter should go back to the Adjudicating Authority - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 979 of 2006 with Misc. Application No. 55115 of 2013 and Excise Appeal Nos. 980 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts further investigation was conducted at the end of the appellants wherein statement of various persons of the appellants were recorded and on the basis of those statements, documents revealed from the buyers and their statements, the show cause notices were issued to the appellants alleging clandestine removal of finished goods from their factory under the guise of Order Form and Estimates . The appellants contended before the Adjudicating Authority that they have not provided the relied upon documents, therefore, they are not able to defend their case efficiently. The appellants were directed to inspect the records. Appellants inspected the records and there after sought cross-examination of the persons whose statement has been relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts relied by the Adjudicating Authority have no relevance, therefore, the impugned order to be set aside on that ground only and there is no reasons to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for denovo adjudication. To support the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments :- (i) M.G. Shahani Co. (Delhi) Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) ; (ii) Dimple Overseas vs. CC, Kandla reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.) ; (iii) Bhagwati Oil Mills vs. CST reported in [1977] 39 STC 222 (All) ; (iv) Duggal Bricks Supply Company vs. CST reported in [1989] 72 STC 343 (All). 5. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that apart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (294) E.L.T. 353 (Del.), J K Cigarettes Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R. 225 (Del.). The contention of the learned Counsel is that as the cross examination of the persons whose statements have been relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority has not been given in that circumstances the statements of those persons are not reliable therefore impugned order be set aside is not acceptable to the extent that impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed. In fact, the learned AR also contended that some of the documents recovered from the premises of the buyers have been countersigned by Shri Mukesh Benara and the learned Counsel during the course of argument have also admitted, the same. Therefore for fair tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
