TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted:- 15-6-2010 - Rakesh Sharma, J. REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri Kishna Agrawal and Pradeep Agrawal, for the Petitioner, S.S.C., for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard Sarvasri Pradeep Agrawal and Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. I emerges from the record that as a result of search and seizure in the factory and premises of the petitioner as well as investigation etc. formal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the Central Excise Department. In furtherance of the proceedings, a show cause notice was issued against him on 7-7-2008. Lateron, a corrigendum was issued to the show cause notice by the Director Genera] of Central Excise Intel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was incumbent upon the Authorities to allow the petitioner to have opportunity of cross-examination of various persons, de tails of which were given in the application dated 23-11-2009. The Department has fixed 10th June, 2010 as a date for final hearing without making available all above documents and opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. 3. Sri Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Tax) 249 of 2007, M/s. Bhushan Steel Strips Ltd. v. Union of India and others, on 1-3-2007 in support of his submissions. In this case, the Division Bench of this Court has placed reliance on several judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.Ex. Hyderabad, 2002 (141) E.L.T. 24 (A.P.); Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 (153) E.L.T. 513 (Bom); Johnson Johnson Ltd. v. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports Exports, 2003 (154) E.L.T. 370 (Bom.); Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2006 (193) E.L.T. 385 (Bom.) = 2007 (8) S.T.R. 84 (Bom); and Silicon Graphics System (India) Private Limited v. Union of India, 2006 (204) E.L.T. 247 (Bom.). 7. In view of above legal position, this Court is also of the view that its obligatory on the part of the revenue to return non-relied documents to the assessee. The relied documents or copies thereof must also be furnished to enable the petitioner to plead its case effectively and defend itself. 8. In view of above, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
