9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue to contend that the statements made by Sohanraj Mehta in the course of the investigation would tantamounts to statements made in a court. Be that as it may, if Sohanraj Mehta is examined as a witness for the revenue, it is needless to state that the said witness should be tendered for cross examination by the petitioner. - Merely because Sohanraj Mehta allegedly implicated the petitioner by making a statement in writing does not necessarily mean that proof of implication of the petitioner, in the transaction. It is for the revenue to establish such implication if at any time Sohanraj Mehta is examined as a witness for the revenue to prove the implication of the petitioner, it is needless to state that he ought to be tendered for cross e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n known as Sohanraj Mehta, it is said, addressed a letter dated 21.10.2009 implicating the petitioner, which letter is not retracted. The revenue having based its claim or laid a foundation on that statement, hence petitioner was entitled to cross examine that person. In addition it is stated that even according to the revenue, as disclosed in the show cause notice, Sohanraj Mehta is said to have made several statements in the course of an enquiry which are relied upon by the revenue to establish the case against the petitioner. These facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 4. Although learned counsel for the revenue draws the attention of the court to clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 9D of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny time Sohanraj Mehta is examined as a witness for the revenue to prove the implication of the petitioner, it is needless to state that he ought to be tendered for cross examination by the petitioner. 7. It is in the further submission that one Srinivasan, Accountant of Champion Packaging, is a witness to be examined by the petitioner. If that is so, if there is no embargo in law, it is open for the petitioner to make necessary application for issue of summons, so as to examine him as a witness for the petitioner. 8. If Officers of the Central Excise allegedly conducted surveillance of the factory premises of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to prove that fact of surveillance by examining the officers and therefore, the quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
