9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... destine removal and under-valuation are not sustainable. But the adjudicating authority has considered those evidence which has been discarded by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. Further 11 witnesses has not turned up for cross examination, therefore the statements of these 11 witnesses cannot be made the basis to prove charge against the appellant. Moreover, the witness Shri Ashok Kumar who has been examined, has also deposed in favor of the appellant. In that circumstances, in the absence of any positive evidence against the appellant for clandestine removal and under-valuation, the charges are not sustainable. In that view, we hold that proceedings against the appellant have no legs to stand and therefore, same are set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. In remand proceedings, out of 12 witness, only one witness was cross-examined who also gave statement in favour of the appellant but the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand against the appellant along with interest and imposition of equivalent amount of penalty. 3. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the remand proceedings, this Tribunal has directed that the other evidence are not adequate and the cross examination of 12 witnesses is required to be done and only one witness was cross-examined. Therefore, statements of remaining 11 witnesses cannot be the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellants herein. 3. On the question of valuation also, we observe that it is admitted by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order that valuation at a higher level has been made by the department on the basis of statements recorded from some of the buyers and yet we observe with some pain that the Collector has denied the right to cross-examination to the appellants observing that there is other adequate evidence on record to resolve the question of valuation. On going through the order, we observe that the other evidence on record is not adequate enough to come to the conclusion of higher valuation. Therefore, we are of the view that the adjudicating authority must give to the appellants herein the opportunity to cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
