New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (7) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 217 (Mad.) - Clandestine removal of goods - violation of principles of natural justice in not permitting the appellant to cross examine the persons from whom statements were recorded - Held that:- After going through the impugned order made in appeal No.E/40772/2014 dated 02.11.2015 of the CESTAT, Chennai, we find that the plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice, in not permitting the appellant to cross examine the person .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 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 Appeal No.91/2014 dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem between NGA Steels Private Limited and Commissioner of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s examination is not a matter of right, when burden of proof had been discharged by the department, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the appellate authority, vide order in in Appeal No.SLM-CEX-000-APP 33/2011 dated 18.05.2011, rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, appellant has moved CESTAT in Appeal Nos.E/371/2011 and E/413/2011. After considering the submission of the appellant that there was a denial of opportunity to cross examine and by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ph 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

material on record that the Tribunal passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹ 80,000/- and thus granting the application of the petitioner for stay-cum-waiver in part." Hence, the adjudicator can take a decision on requests for cross-examination which may largely depend on the facts of the case and circumstances of each case and there is no infirmity in the order of the adjudicator in this regard. 6. Being aggrieved by the order-in-Appeal No.91/2014 da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re was a categorical denial of the Managing Director of the appellant, the appellate authority ought 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 r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

products from the factory and suppression of production with electricity consumption? B. Whether the Tribunal is justified in passing the final order without discussing or without giving a finding on the specific plea raised in the grounds of appeal that cross examination of persons who gave statements against the appellant and which were relied on by the Dept. is mandatory? C. Whether the documents maintained by third parties and statements alsone constitute sufficient evidence to come to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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