9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer has proceeded to adjudicate the matter by recording that the Consultant, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, had not pressed for cross-examination of the other witnesses. This according to the petitioners is factually an incorrect statement, as the petitioners wanted to cross-examine those two witnesses, since the quantification made in the show cause notice was on the basis of the statements recorded from those witnesses. The writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration and fresh adjudication shall be made by a different officer, as observed supra and while doing so, the statements recorded from V.Kumaraswamy and S.Padmanabhan shall be esch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidering the matter in detail, by order dated 8.12.2008, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the adjudicating officer for fresh consideration. The reason for such remand could be ascertained from the operative portion of the order, at paragraph No.7, which would run thus: 7. Thus, it is felt that the appellants had been deprived of the opportunity of defending their case properly, during the course of the adjudication proceedings. In view of the above hit is felt that this is a fit case for de novo consideration by the Lower Authority after supplying the appellants with all the relied upon documents and another opportunity of personal hearing to defend their case including cross-examination of witnesses as requested by the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsultant, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, had not pressed for cross-examination of the other witnesses. This according to the petitioners is factually an incorrect statement, as the petitioners wanted to cross-examine those two witnesses, since the quantification made in the show cause notice was on the basis of the statements recorded from those witnesses. 7. Since a factual dispute was involved in the matter, the respondent was directed to file counter and accordingly a common counter affidavit, in all the writ petitions, has been filed and a re-joinder has also been filed, by the petitioner in W.P.No.12520 of 2016. 8. From paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the counter affidavit it is seen that the Department had sent summons t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the job works has also been made, relying upon the statements given by those two persons. 10. It may be true that the impugned proceedings are not solely based upon those two statements. But nevertheless, those statements having been taken into consideration and those persons not having been available for cross-examination, this Court is of the view that the matter requires to be remanded for fresh consideration. 11. Considering the fact that the respondent, the Joint Commissioner, Salem, has already decided the matter elaborately and passed the impugned order, in fitness of things, on remand, the file can be placed before some other officer of concurrent jurisdiction, who could decide the matter, without being in any manner influe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
