TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of natural justice by the Commissioner as also in view of other factors discussed subsequently by us. We are of the view that the matters need to be re-adjudicated. 2. The demand in the instant case stand confirmed against M/s. Gandhi Fibres, who is a 100% EOU, along with imposition of penalty on the ground that the duty free procured goods by the said appellant stand diverted by them in the local market as against their claim of having used the same in the manufacture of final product either in their own factory or through job work. The above allegations and findings of the adjudicating authority are based upon the extensive investigations made by the Revenue and the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of such investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss-examination was allowed by the Commissioner. The appellant has also made a specific request for allowing cross-examination of various witnesses, with reasons advanced thereby. In their letter dt. 20-12-07, the appellants submitted as under : It may please be appreciated that once this decision on cross-examination of witnesses is communicated to us, we would like to start cross-examining the witnesses summoned (in case our request is allowed). In case the request for cross-examination is denied for any reason, which may please be specified in your communication, we would like to file our final submission within a short period. 4. In case the Commissioner decided to reject the cross-examination, he is duty bound to convey his decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that such show cause notices were adjudicated by the same adjudicating authority, who passed the impugned order confirming differential duty. We agree with the learned advocate that if that be the case, the same is self-contradictory on the part of the Revenue. Different show cause notices making two altogether different allegations, which are pointing by divert to each other, cannot be made. Only one of the Revenue s stand has to be correct stand. It cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath by alleging on one hand that the raw material have not been used and stand diverted and on the other hand alleging that the final product made out of the same raw material stand cleared on lower payment of duty. Though this fact was brought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther note that various show cause notices were issued to the job workers, EOUs alleging diversion of raw material received by them from M/s. Gandhi Fibres. Some of such show cause notices also stand adjudicated by the officers, as per applicant. If that be so, we really fail to understand as to how Revenue can allege diversion of the raw material from their factory without sending the same to the job workers. It is again very self-contradictory situation wherein on one hand Revenue is alleging that the consignee EOU actually received the raw material from M/s. Gandhi Fibres and diverted the same in the local market and on the other hand it is being alleged in the present case that M/s. Gandhi Fibres diverted the material instead of sending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
