9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as kept on the activities of one of the buyers of the respondent namely M/s. Mahajan Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. whose premises were searched and it was found that M/s. Mahajan Steel Rolling Mills is engaged in the activity of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods without payment of duty. In these set of facts, a search was conducted at the Dharam Kanda where the goods sold by the respondent were weighed, the records on Dharam Kanda were resumed and the statement of Sh. Shanker, an employee of Dharam Kanda was recorded who stated that the respondent was selling goods to M/s. Mahajan Steel Rolling Mills and all the goods are weighed at their Dharam Kanda. On the basis of this statement, the case has been made out against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded at the Dharam Kanda is admissible evidence who has certified the documents recovered from Dharam Kanda. During the search, the statement of Sh. Shanker was recorded. Merely, non-cross-examination of Sh. Shanker does not vitiate the proceedings. 5. On the other hand, ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the contention of ld. AR and submits that the whole case has been made out on the basis of the documents recovered from the Dharam Kanda and the statement of Shri Shanker, the employee of the Dharam Kanda but Sh. Shanker was not produced for cross-examination. In that circumstances, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the demands against the respondent. 6. Heard the parties and considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above the main reason for remand and re-adjudication of the case was cross-examination of the witnesses. The Department could not produce the main witness Sh. Shanker who was managing concerned Dharam Kanda and maintaining all the records and on whose statement main case is built up. The adjudicating authority also did not allow cross-examination of investigating officer who could have proved the department case. Only witness who was produced has also said that he has no system to prove that who was supplier of the goods. In view of this the mandate given by the Hon'ble CESTAT has not been fulfilled. Consequently, the Order-in-Original in unsustainable. Accordingly, Order-in-Original is set aside and appeal is allowed. 8. I have gone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
