TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Non-supply of the said report resulted into violation of the principles of natural justice and also would have bearing on the findings. Thus, we are of the opinion that the issue be re-examined afresh, after handing over a copy of the report to the Appellant. At this point, ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that this issue has been pending since 2008 and hence, time-frame be fixed for adjudication. Thus, we direct the Adjudicating Authority to complete the adjudication proceedings within three months from the date of supply of the copy of the Investigation. - APPEAL NO.E/A/338/2008 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2013 - DR. D. M. MISRA AND DR. I. P. LAL, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI J.P.KHAITAN, SR. ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI B.SAHA, ADVOCATE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though on the earlier occasion, they have made a submission that a report was collected by the Adjudicating Authority, after cross-examination of the witness, Shri Nitya Gopal Pradhan, from the Investigating Officers, but a copy was not supplied to them. His submission is that this vital point was not considered while directing the predeposit of the said amount. His submission is that during the course of cross-examination, Shri Nitya Gopal Pradhan came out with the plea that he was not purchaser of the goods, but a broker. The entire case had been based on the allegation that the goods that were cleared against challans from the factory, without payment of duty, were sold to Shri Nitya Gopal Pradhan. It is his submission that non-supply of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this stage, and hence, after waiving the requirement of predeposit of the dues adjudged, with the consent of both sides, we take up the Appeal itself for disposal. 5. We find that the main allegation in the show cause notice was that the Appellant had cleared the excisable goods without payment of duty against challans. It is their claim that subsequently, they had produced evidences in support of the fact, that necessary excise duty had been paid on the said goods cleared against the challans. We find that the Appellant had requested cross-examination of the main witness, Shri Nitya Gopal Pradhan. During the course of cross-examination, Shri Nitya Gopal Pradhan had admitted that he was a broker and not a purchaser of the goods to whom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
