TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Admittedly adjudicating authority has denied opportunity of cross-examination – Court of considered opinion that appellant should be allowed cross-examination of two processors – Actual consumption of imported raw material, should be considered by adjudicating authority – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to decide afresh – Decided partly in favour of Appellant. - Appeal No. : C/115-116/2007, Application No. : C/MA(Extn)/10443/2015) - ORDER No. A/10783-10784/2015 - Dated:- 9-6-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das and Mr. P.M. Saleem, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri J.C. Patel and Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocates For The Respondent : Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative Per : Mr. P.K. Das; The relevant facts of the case, in brie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinely cleared duty free inputs without payment of duty. By the impugned order, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty. It has also imposed penalty on Shri Ramchanra N. Tandel, Director of the appellant Company. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the learned Advocate is that the entire demand of duty was raised merely on the basis of formula, can not be sustained. He further submits that the statement of the Director was retracted immediately, can not be relied upon as an evidence. It was further submitted that the appellant requested for cross-examination of two processors, whose statements were relied upon but no oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs which was denied. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vasudev Garg vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2013 (294) ELT 353 (Del.) held that statement against the assessee cannot be used, without giving them opportunity of cross-examining the deponent. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue that the adjudicating authority has rightly denied the opportunity of cross-examination. In the present case, the department has strongly relied upon the statements of two processors, in our considered view, the appellant should be allowed cross-examination of the two processors. We also noticed that the actual consumption of the imported raw material, as placed by the learned Advocate shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
