Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 90 - CESTAT AHMEDABADRecovery of duty - clandestine removal - 100% EOU - fake transactions - opportunity of being heard - Held that: - In confirming the demand against the appellants M/s. Premier Polyspin Pvt. Limited, the adjudicating authority considered evidences mainly in the form of statements, which the appellants claimed to be not reliable and sought cross-examination of Shri Haroon Razaq Chhaya, Shri Irfan Gulam Rasool Saiyed and Shri Rashid Sadatli Saiyed. Also, the grievance of the appellant is that no effective personal hearing was extended to them inasmuch as three consecutive dates of hearing was given by the adjudicating authority without affording time for them to attend the personal hearing and defend their case. Also, the ld. Advocate argued that M/s. Premier Polyspin Pvt. Limited and Shri Rohit Dharamprakash Gupta were neither given the relied upon documents nor un-relied upon documents retrieved from their premises were returned to them so as to prepare their reply to show cause notice and submit before the adjudicating authority. Cumulatively, thus the crux of the argument is, there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that appellants M/s. Sunshine Overseas, Shri Haroon Razaq Chhaya, Shri Irfan Gulam Rasool Saiyed and Shri Rashid Sadatli Saiyed be allowed e cross-examination of witnesses requested by them except the panch witnesses and M/s. M/s. Premier Polyspin Pvt. Limited and Shri Rohit Dharamprakash Gupta be supplied with the copies of relied upon documents and the un-relied upon documents be returned to them. The ld. Advocate undertakes to furnish reply to the show cause notice within fortnight from the date of receipt of the said documents. At this stage, ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the matter has been pending for more than a decade, hence a time-frame be fixed for completion of the adjudication proceeding. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|