9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Delhi and Shri Bipin Kumar, Assistant Professor, IIT, Delhi who have given the expert technical opinion which were relied upon in the show cause notice and this Tribunal has allowed the cross examination. Since the same issue particularly, cross-examination of the same persons was involved, the above decision is directly applicable in the appellant s case - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sh. K.I. Vyas, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. S.N. Gohil, Superintendent (Authorised Representative) for the Respondent ORDER These appeals are filed against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner whereby the request of appellant for cross-examination of witnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Aurangabad 2014 (300) ELT 119 (Tri- Mumbai) (13) Shalini Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner- 2011 (269) ELT 485 (A.P.) (14) Manidhari Stainless Wire Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India- 2018 (360) ELT 255 (A.P.) (15) A.L. Jalaludeen vs Deputy Director Enforcement Directorate- 2010 (261) ELT 84 (Mad.) (16) Jagdish Shaker Trivedi vs Commissioner- 2006 (194) ELT 290 (Tribunal) (17) Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs Union of India- 1997 (89) ELT 646 (S.C.) (18) Fortune Impex vs Commissioner- 2001 (138) ELT 556 (Tribunal) (19) In Re: G Subramanian 2002 (142) ELT 224 (G.O.I.) (20) Patel Engineering Ltd. vs Union of India 2014 (307) ELT 862 (Bom) (21) Simco Paints Inds. Vs Commr. of Raigad 2014- TIOL-CESTAT-Mum 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of N.S. Mahesh reported as 2016 (331) ELT 402 (Ker.) wherein the Hon ble Court upheld the denial of cross examination of the departmental officers. From the above finding, the Adjudicating Authority has stated that the request for cross examination of 11 persons is not maintainable as nothing new is likely to come out and will only delay adjudication proceedings. We do not agree with the Adjudicating Authority that only due to likelihood of delay in adjudicating proceeding, the cross examination can be denied. There is no shortcut in the adjudication process. It is a fact on record that except SIO, all other persons have either given the statements under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a proceeding before a court. From the plain reading of the above section, particularly, clause (b) of sub section 1 of section 138(b), it is clear that the statement made and signed by person before the Custom Officer can be admitted as evidence when the person who made the statement is examined as a witness in the case before the court and the court is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. In the above section, no exception is provided or any discretion is provided for the Adjudicating Authority to allow or not to allow the cross examination. Particularly, in the present case, when the appellant have vehemently requested the cross exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
