9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. At the outset, Ld. Advocate Shri N.K. Chowdhury for the Applicant submits that the present demand has been confirmed in gross violation of principle of natural justice, in as much as, the appellant was denied the right of personal hearing and also cross examination of witnesses. The statements that were accepted as evidence in confirming the demand, without allowing cross-examination of the witnesses, is bad in law. He submits that after receipt of the show cause notice dated 17/10/2012, the applicant made a request on 13/03/2013 for supply of documents referred to and relied upon in the show cause notice. He submits that few documents were though handed over to them but since all the relevant documents, were not provided, therefore, de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey may be given an opportunity to rebut the allegations by adducing evidences and present their case before the adjudicating authority after filing a detail reply to the show cause notice. 4. Per contra, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the order has recorded that the applicant was given more than three adjournments. He submits that the applicant responded to the show cause notice requesting the documents only after the said three opportunity of hearings were over. The requested documents, however, were handed over to them during the course of the proceeding. Therefore, there is no violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submitted that the cross examination w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he finished goods were claimed to have been manufactured and cleared on payment of duty. While confirming the demand, the Ld. Commissioner referred to the statement of the proprietor, the employees, the transporters, input suppliers and the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer etc. in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant at the relevant point of time did not have infrastructure to manufacture the quantity of excisable goods claimed to have been manufactured and cleared from their factory. All these evidences need to be examined in detail after taking into consideration the reply of the appellant against such evidences. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the Appellant be provided a chance to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
