9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand, much prejudice is caused to the respondent by not allowing them to cross-examine the witnesses - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/CO/59/2010 and E/483/2010 - A/40098/2018 - Dated:- 12-1-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) - for the Appellant Shri R. Balagopal, Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order impugned herein set aside the Order-in-Original and remanded the matter to the adjudicating for denovo consideration and directed to grant permission for cross-examination of witnesses to the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the department has now filed the present appeal. 2. On behalf of Revenue, the ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidhran appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) after considering the grounds put forward by the respondent in the appeal filed before him has set aside the adjudicating order directing for denovo consideration. The respondents were not given chance to cross-examine the persons whose statements have been relied by the department for issuance of the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand relying upon these stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Kerala in the case of Abdul Khader Vs. CESTAT, Bangalore - 2016 (336) ELT 389 (Ker.) and the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Basudev Garg Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2013 9294) ELT 353 (Del.) 6. Following the same, we are of the view that the impugned order calls for no interference. The appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. The cross-objection filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
