TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were recorded, was not geven any heed. The entire case was passed on theoretical calculation made on the basis of a formula certified by the Chartered Engineer and some statements of job workers. In these facts, it was necessary on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to provide cross-examination of the witnesses and it is mandatory under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned order passed without allowing the cross-examination and without conducting effective personal hearing is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained - matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after conducting examination/ cross-examination of the witnesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the Chartered Engineer, M/s. Jai Hanuman Textiles (job worker), M/s. Heena Textiles (job worker) and the Senior Intelligence Officer DGCEI. He submits that without response to the appellant s letter dated 17.06.2008 for cross-examination, the appellant was directed to appear for personal hearing on 23.06.2008 vide letter dated 23.05.2008. The appellant once again requested for adjournment as well as for allowing the cross-examination vide letter dated 21.06.2008 and further reminded for cross-examination vide letter dated 21.08.2008. However, ex-parte order came to be passed on the premise that the appellants were served with subsequent notices for personal hearings on 25.07.2008 and 18.12.2008. He submits that these letters were n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. J.S. Gupta Sons 2015 (318) ELT 63 (All.) 4. Shri Amal Dave, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. Bandana Chandrashekhar Naidu, Chartered Engineer has given detailed written submission. He relied on the following judgments:- (a) RM Kothari Company vs. CC 2002 (150) ELT 378 (Tri. Mumbai) (b) S.N. Garg vs. CCE, Allahabad 2013 (292) ELT 93 (Tri. Del.) 5. On the other hand, Shri Sameer Chitkara, Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that the order was passed ex-parte and no hearing was conducted. The repeated request of the appellant for cross-exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
