Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Asiatic Colourchem Industries Ltd, Shri Mahesh Agrawal, M/s Tanisha Colourchem Industries, M/s Shanghai Colours Lab Pvt Ltd, M/s Shyam Industries, M/s Mitul International, M/s Aeromax Synthetics Industries, M/s Aditya Synthetics, M/s Asiatic Colourchem Industries Ltd, M/s Bhatia Colour Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise-Ahmedabad

2016 (10) TMI 375 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

100% EOU - clandestine removal of inputs - demand of customs duty, excise duty - imposition of penalty - cross examination of witnesses - principles of natural justice - Held that: - decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon where it was held that, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the adjudicating authority, though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2016 - Dated:- 19-9-2016 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon ble Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. M. Saleem, Hon ble Member (Technical) For Appellant : Shri Anand Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Shri J. Nagori, Authorised Representative ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra These appeals are filed against OIO No. 21/Commission/RKS/AHD-II/2008 dated 17.11.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Asiatic Colourchem Industries Ltd., an 100 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty imposed on the main appellant and also personal penalty on other appellants. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeals. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri Anand Mishra appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned order mainly on two grounds. It is his contention that the demand has been confirmed against the appellant, on an unverified formula of raw material consumption to the final yield, and secondly, by placing reliance on the stateme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e show cause notice and in the order but, the Ld. Commissioner without recording any reason rejected their request for cross examination. It is his contention that the order of the adjudicating authority thus suffers from violation of basic principles of natural justice. In support, he relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II 2015 (10) TMI 442 and the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in 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

Commissoner has rightly rejected their request for cross-examination. 5. In his rejoinder, Ld. Advocate for the appellant made it clear that the appellant are not interested in pursuing the cross examination of officers who investigated the case but they should be allowed cross-examination of other witnesses. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the allegation of clandestine diversion/clearance of raw material/inputs by the appellant rest on appreciation of evidences collec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

while challenging the show cause notice, requested cross examination of witnesses, through their reply dated 20.08.2008. Also, during the course of personal hearing, the said request was reiterated by the Ld. advocate appearing for the appellant. On the issue of allowing cross examination, we find the matter is now recently considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra). Their Lordships at para 6 of the judgement observed as follows:- 6. According to us, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version