TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lea regarding violation of principles of natural justice is raised, CESTAT, Chennai, is bound to record a specific finding, which is conspicuously absent. CESTAT, Chennai, directed to pass appropriate orders only on the specific aforesaid issue - Decided partly in favor of appellant. - CMA No. 1212 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2016 - S. Manikumar And D. Krishnakumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. K. Jayachandran For the Respondents : Mr. V. Sundareswaran JUDGMENT [ Judgment of the Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ] Instant appeal is filed against the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT], Chennai in Appeal No.E/40772/2014-SM, arising out of an order in Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cross examination of persons from whom statements were recorded / witnesses, was once again considered by the appellate authority. While doing so, at paragraph no.8 of the order in Appeal No.91/2014 dated 13.02.2014, the appellate authority has recorded as hereunder. 08. The appellant have also argued that cross examination was not allowed. In this regard, it is observed that right to cross-examination is not an absolute right and the question whether the appellant was entitled to cross-examination is a question which may largely depend on the facts of the case. The Allahabad High Court [1993 (68) E.L.T. 548 (All)] has held that Moreover, the right to cross-examination is not an absolute right. The question whether the petitioner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to have allowed cross examination to unravel the truth. Reliance has also been placed on the decision reported in 2009 (248) ELT 497 (Tri.Ahamadabad). 7. After adverting to the grounds of appeal, the CESTAT, Chennai, passed an order dated 02.11.2015 in Appeal No.E/40772/2014 confirming the demand of ₹ 8,80,037/- with the concessional penalty and interest to follow. There is also a limited remand in respect of duty demand of ₹ 4,57,228/-. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of CESTAT, Chennai made in Appeal No.E/40772/2014 dated 02.11.2015, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed, on the following substantial Questions of law. A. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding clandestine removal of Final products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er CESTAT, Chennai, has adverted to the said plea. But, sought to justify the orders passed by the authorities including CESTAT, Chennai, contending that when burden is discharged by the department, there is no need to permit cross examination. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that when a specific plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice is raised, CESTAT, Chennai, is bound to record a specific finding, which is conspicuously absent. 12. In the light of the above discussion, we are inclined to answer substantial question of law No.B, in favour of the appellant and thus, allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The matter is remanded to CESTAT, Chennai to consider and to record a finding on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
