9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Andaman Timbers Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] - the matters are remanded to the ld. Commissioner with the direction to allow cross-examination of witnesses as already directed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 17.11.2006 - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Central Excise Appeal No.655 to 658 of 2008-SM - A/13402-13405/2017 - Dated:- 13-11-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Raj Vyas, Advocate, Advocate for the Appellants Shri A. Mishra, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue ORDER Per Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. These four Appeals are filed against the Order-in- Original No.15/MP/VAPI/2008 dated 10.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Vapi. 2. Briefly stated the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand with interest and imposed penalties on the Appellants. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri K.L.Vyas for the Appellants submits that even though the Tribunal has specifically directed to allow cross-examination of all the witnesses requested by them, Ld. Commissioner did not allow cross-examination of the witnesses namely, Shri Maganbhai Prabhubhai Kapadia, Shri V.V. Mane, employees of the Appellant factory and others. Ld. Advocate has further submitted that denial of cross-examination of these witnesses had resulted in violation of principle of natural justice and also contrary to the Order of the Tribunal dated 17.11.2006. In support, he has referred to the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the employees of the Appellant, therefore, allowing cross-examination of the witnesses would result into further delay of the proceeding. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The limited question involved for determination is: whether there was shortages in the finished stock of goods and the raw materials of 1,60,562.51 kgs. as recorded in the panchnama dated 22.12.1998/24.12.1998. Ld. Advocate has vehemently argued that the show cause notice dated 29.1.1999 issued earlier to the Appellant, on the very same issue of non-payment of duty on the shortages of goods of 1,45,588.090kgs. demanding duty of ₹ 26,02,828/-noticed is pending de novo adjudication. He has argued that on shortages noticed on the date of visit on 02.8.19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
