9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had suffered a show cause notice. The petitioner had replied thereto. The proceeding was taken up for consideration by an Adjudicating Officer. According to the petitioner, the Adjudicating Officer had acted in br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, while CESTAT had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of final adjudication in view of the Adjudicating Authority not having allowed the petitioner the right of cross-examination of the prosecution witness, it had proceeded to impose a pre-condition of a deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs. He submits that, since the quantum is yet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral witnesses were examined in chief. Admittedly, the petitioner was disallowed the right to cross-examination of such witnesses. The Adjudicating Officer had passed an order, which was impugned before CESTAT. The appeal was taken up for consideration by CESTAT and was disposed of by one of the impugned orders dated January 5, 2016. By such impugned order, CESTAT had set aside the order of the Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch circumstances and particularly in view of the fact that, the final adjudication is yet to happen, it would be appropriate to set aside such portion of the direction contained in the impugned order dated January 5, 2016 passed by CESTAT which requires the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs for the adjudication proceedings to be finalized. 9. In view of the observations made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
