9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal dated 29/3/2011 and remand the case to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration after allowing the cross-examination of the witnesses which appellants have sought as cross-examination. We make it clear that this Bench has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues have been kept open for the adjudicating authority to deliberate upon. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Stay Application Nos. E/S 701-704/2011, Excise Appeal Nos. E/594/2011 to 597/2011 - Order No. FO/A/75434-75437/15 - Dated:- 17-8-2015 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Judicial Member And Shri H. K. Thakur, Technical Member,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri B. N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant For the Respondent : Sri A. K. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants filed stay applications and appeals. That vide an order dated 21/11/2013, this Bench while disposing of the stay applications ordered that the main appellant should deposit 25% of the dues confirmed within a period of eight weeks from the date of the stay order and the dues against the other applicants were waived subject to the payment to be made by the main appellant. That main appellant filed WP No. 1950 (W) of 2014 against the said stay order dated 21/11/2013 and Hon ble Calcutta High Court vide order dated 30/01/2014 remanded the matter back to this Bench for deciding the issue afresh by passing following order: It is no doubt true that Tribunal cannot base its finding by adopting pick and choose method relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s already ordered is required to be paid by the appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. The main appellant has mainly argued on the ground that cross-examination of the witnesses was not given to them and that on this ground alone, the demand is required to be rejected. It was strongly argued by the consultant of the appellants that except the statements of Shri Raju Das, Works Manager and some job workers, there is no other corroborative evidence to suggest non receipt of inputs in the factory premises of the appellant. As the issue involved lies in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay applications, we take up the appeals themselves for disposal. It is observed from the case records that the case is made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
