TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We are conscious that the Commissioner has already decided such an issue, however, since we are quashing the order, this part of the order would also not survive and hence, the requirement of a fresh order. We are informed that the same officer continues to hold the office of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Surat-II. It would therefore, be not necessary to separately hear the petition once again before passing any such order. This would, however, not preclude the Commissioner from requiring the petitioners to show relevance for seeking cross-examination of the witnesses. Reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority for coming to conclusion in the matter is incorrect and entire issue needs reconsideration as per the all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance is incorrect. 5. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, would draw our attention to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has not passed an order entirely relying upon the Order-in-Original passed in respect of M/s Bhilosa Industrial Pvt. Ltd. He would submit that the reasoning recorded by the adjudicating authority in Para 37.1 to 37.7 in detail about the availment of in-eligible CENVAT Credit by the appellant M/s Krishna Knitwear Technologies Ltd. 6. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority has not followed the principles of natural justice in as much as in Para 35.4, the authority records that the Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s Krishna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce to grant it. What we, however, find is that the petitioners had atleast a right to be told whether such application is being granted or refused before final order was passed. When the petitioners prayed for cross-examination and reasonably expected that the same would be granted, they cannot be expected to participate in the adjudicating proceedings up to the final stage. In other words, without dealing with and disposing of the petitioners application for cross-examination, the adjudicating authority could not have finally adjudicated the issues. If he was of the opinion that the request for cross-examination was not tenable, by giving reasons, he could have rejected it. We wonder what would have happened, if he was inclined to accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notice in the case in hand. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after taking a decision on the applications made for cross-examination and after granting personal hearing to the appellant on the issue. 9. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority should restrict his findings to the show cause notice and the allegations/evidences made in the show cause notice which has been issued to the appellants. 10. The impugned order is set aside and all appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. 11. The Miscellaneous application filed for extension of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
