TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that circumstances, I do agree with the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order, the same is upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/51573/2015-EX(SM) - Final Order No. 237/2016-CHD - Dated:- 17-3-2016 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri M.R. Sharma, AR, for the Appellant. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside the order of confirmation of demand against the respondent by way of this adjudication order. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacturing of non-alloy steel ingots. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the appellant in the case. In adjudication proceedings, cross-examination of Sh. Jagdish Singh, son of owner of Dharam Kanda was conducted and nothing incriminating was found but the main witness could not be produced for cross-examination and the adjudicating authority passed the order confirming the demand along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty on the respondent. Before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) the adjudication order was set aside on the ground that the person whose statement has been relied by the Revenue could not be produced for cross-examination. In that circumstances, demand is not sustainable. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before me. 4. The ld. AR submits that the statement of Sh. Jagdish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Mola Dharam Kanda (3) The Central Excise Officer who investigated the case. 10.3 The cross-examination of Sh. Jagdish Singh, representative of the Mola Dharam Kanda has been conducted by the adjudicating authority. In cross-examination Sh. Jagdish Singh stated that there was no system available with M/s. Dharam Kanda to identify the supplier of the goods. However his earlier statement may be treated as true and correct. Further on being asked regarding the whereabouts of Sh. Shankar he stated that he does not know the whereabouts of Sh. Shanker at present and his address is available on record. Sh. Shanker could not be produced for cross-examination and cross-examination of the investigation officer was not allowed. As said abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
