9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, confirming a demand for duty of Rs. 1,89,335/- issued to the appellant on the ground of shortage of fabrics processed by it. 2. The stocks in the premises of the appellant were verified by the departmental officers from 6-2-1991 to 12-2-1991. It is on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actually in the premises. 3. We are unable to accept this contention. The verification of the stock went on for seven days continuously. There is absolutely no material to support the contention that the plea for reverification of the stock was not considered. On the contrary the panchanama dated 10 and 11-2-1991 itself records the request made by Harish Parekh, Kamlesh Shah and thereafter t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pendence. No specific request was made for their cross-examination. A sentence in the reply to the notice to the effect that the appellant "reserves the right to cross-examine the witnesses and the officers" is far short of a specific request for cross-examination. It is significant that no such grievance was pointed out to the Collector at the hearing which followed thereafter. It is not a ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the officers in the premises did not listen to the appellant's representative) to bring his claim to the notice of the superior officers of the Department. The plea now taken is therefore entirely unacceptable. This being the case, any payment of duty that was made by the appellant subsequent to the panchanama would not relate to the goods which were found short in it and therefore would h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
