9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guesswork as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price-list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e between the goods sold at ex-factory and delivery basis in comparison with the goods which were sold to the buyers from their depots. Investigation was carried out. Statements of two buyers, viz., Sri Sreeram Tekriwal, partner of M/s. Sreeram Santosh Kumar, Calcutta and Sri Laxmidas Panchmati, partner of M/s. Laxmidas Brothers, Bombay were recorded and on that basis, Show-Cause Notice dated 03.05.1995 was served upon the assessee stating as to why the price at which the goods were sold to these customers from the depots may not be the basis for determining the value for the purpose of excise duty. The respondent contested the aforesaid Show-Cause Notice by furnishing its reply wherein various defences/justifications were given. Among othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 per cent and most of the sales, i.e., to the extent of 98 per cent, were from the depots of the assessee which are situated at other places and not at the place of factory, i.e., South Andamans. (2) Though the price at which sales were made ex-factory at South Andamans remains the same over a period of time as far as sales to depots are concerned, the price increased from time to time. 3. Insofar as the plea of the appellant that it was not allowed to cross-examine the dealers whose statements were relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority in passing the orders, the Tribunal rejected its plea in the following manner: - 6. The plea of no cross examination granted to the various dealers would not help the appellant case since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guesswork as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
