9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Ganesh Haavanur, A.R. ORDER Impugned order has been passed against the appellant only on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and beyond the condonable period of limitation also. Therefore, the requirement of predeposit is waived and appeal itself is taken up for final decision. 2. Heard both sides. In this case the order-in-original was passed again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay the same. At this stage only, according to the appellant, they came to know about the impugned order-in-original having been passed against them and thereafter the appellant obtained a copy of the impugned order and a copy of the mahazar for service by making application under RTI Act. Thereafter they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay when the date of order-in-ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was an employee of M/s Patil Computers who was entrusted with the maintenance of computers of Central Excise Department. It was the claim of the appellant that these two cannot be called as witnesses. The appellant sought cross-examination of these two witnesses to bring out the fact that actually the order was not delivered by pasting on the premises. The only ground of the appellant is that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e distance from the premises to the place from where the witnesses came was about 5 kms. In the absence of any legal distance specified, it would not be fair to come to the conclusion that the witnesses were not from the locality. Another claim was that both the witnesses were dependent upon Central Excise department and therefore the mazahar is vitiated and for this purpose, the learned counsel r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual evidence for coming to the conclusion that the delivery in accordance with the provisions of Central Excise Act 1944 on the appellant on 4.7.2008 is the Mahazar. Under these circumstances, I feel that an opportunity to cross-examine should have been given to the appellant in the interest of justice. Since after all the only conclusion that would emerge in case the appellant succeeds would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
