2018 (1) TMI 632

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emises - the adjudicating authority should be given an opportunity to make available the panch witnesses for cross-examination and after doing so should pass an order after following principle of natural justice- appeal allowed by way of remand.
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate for the Appellants Shri K.J. Kinariwala, A.R. for the Respondent/Revenue ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran These three Appeals are directed against the Order in- Appeal No.VAP-EXCUS-000-587 to 589/13-14 dated 14.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs ,Vapi. 2. Heard both sides and perused the record. 3. Main Appellant M/s Technovinyl Polymers India Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of PVC and TRP Polyme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the first Appellate Authority rejected the contention raised in the Appeal and also personal hearing and upheld the Order-in-Original dated 26.7.2013. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants takes the Bench to the entire case record and reads the panchanama, statement of Managing Director and the statement of the responsible officers. It is his submission that both the lower authorities have proceeded on erroneous presumption that the main Appellant had admitted and accepted shortage which is totally incorrect and other statements of the Managing Director and Manager are not indicating so. It is his further submission that despite specific request for cross-examination of Panch witnesses, they were not produced and hence, no reliance can be pl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rect. 8. In rejoinder, Advocate for the Appellant draws my attention to the letter written by the main Appellant dated 16.8.2007 and affidavit filed by them on 13.8.2007 to the Lower authorities, they claimed that the proceeding of stock taking has been erroneous. 9. On a careful consideration, I do find that the main Appellant had sought cross-examination of the panch witnesses in order to bring on record that there was some commission and omission while recording of stock found physically in the premises. It is noticed that the adjudicating authority has recorded that notices were sent to panch witnesses for attending cross-examination but the notices were returned indicating that panchas had left the premises. In my considered view, it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X