Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Dhariwal Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Custom And Service Tax, The Superintendent of Central Excise (ADJN)

2015 (9) TMI 571 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Duty demand - Violation of principle of natural justice - Denial of Opportunity of cross examination of officer who have allegedly conducted surveillance of the petitioner factory - Held that:- It is not the case of the revenue that Sohanraj Mehta who made the statements in the enquiry is examined as a witness in the case before the Court and that the court was of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case his submission should be admitted in evidence, in the interest of jus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roof of implication of the petitioner, in the transaction. It is for the revenue to establish such implication if at any time Sohanraj Mehta is examined as a witness for the revenue to prove the implication of the petitioner, it is needless to state that he ought to be tendered for cross examination by the petitioner. - there is no justification, in law, for the petitioner to seek a direction to the revenue to tender/or cross examination the persons who have not been examined in the case. - Deci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g and a host of officers who are said to have allegedly conducted surveillance of the petitioner factory. 2. According to the petitioner the investigating authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944 caused a raid on the house of one Manoj Mitulal and recovered certain loose sheets belonging to one Sohanraj Mehta while no statements were recorded of Manoj Mitulal . It is the assertion of the petitioner that this Manoj Mitulal should have been tendered for cross examination by the petitioner si .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ss examine that person. In addition it is stated that even according to the revenue, as disclosed in the show cause notice, Sohanraj Mehta is said to have made several statements in the course of an enquiry which are relied upon by the revenue to establish the case against the petitioner. These facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 4. Although learned counsel for the revenue draws the attention of the court to clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 9D of the Central Ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The word court' in the aforesaid statutory provision should be read as a court where a witness is examined and not a statement recorded in an enquiry. Therefore, it is too farfetched for the revenue to contend that the statements made by Sohanraj Mehta in the course of the investigation would tantamounts to statements made in a court. Be that as it may, if Sohanraj Mehta is examined as a witness for the revenue, it is needless to state that the said witness should be tendered for cross exa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version