9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rights of the petitioners are protected. The liberty is granted to the petitioners to adduce any evidence to substantiate their stand and the respondents - authority was also directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, there is no denial of the rights of the petitioners. The order of the learned Single Judge is sufficient and well reasoned to protect the legal rights of the petitioners. They are entitled to make a statement or otherwise as held by the learned Single Judge - there are no good ground to consider the case of the petitioners - appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax liability is wrong as the same has not been declared in ST-3 returns and therefore, demanded payment of alleged short paid service tax of ₹ 1,33,73,768/- along with interest. 3. It is the allegation of the petitioners that, petitioner No.2 was called by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to his office by threatening of dire consequences, forced him to sign his statement admitting evasion of tax as dictated by him to subordinate officer. As petitioner No.2 refused to do so, he was made to stay late in the night beyond office hours. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 was arrested by respondent No.5 and was produced before the jurisdictional Court. He was remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, released on bail. The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x to provide an opportunity to file the reply and objections as well as to adduce any evidence by the petitioners. The Commissioner was accordingly directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the right to cross-examination has not been granted. 6. However, the same is disputed to by the respondents' counsel. 7. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The question of cross-examination of petitioner No.2 by himself and the adjudicating authority does not arise. Even otherwise, the rights of the petitioners are protected. The liberty is granted to the petitioners to adduce any ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
