TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] on this issue has observed that, According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. - Matter remanded back. - Appeal No. E/3385/2006/E/2605/2008-EX [DB] - Final Order No. 55415-55416/2016 - Dated:- 28-11-2016 - Mr. Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) S/S Hemant Bajaj, Vipul Agrawal, ld. advocate for the appellant Sh. Amresh Jain, AR for the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the Department in both the impugned orders, has heavily relied upon the technical opinions provided by M.L.V. Textile Institute, Bhilwara and Northern India Textile Research Association (NITRA), Ghaziabad. v. Without prejudice to the aforementioned, it is submitted that the technical reports are required to be read as a whole and not in parts. Department cannot pick and choose findings which are in their favour and ignore the findings which are in favour of the Appellant. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that report by M.L.V. Textile Institute, Bhilwara clearly states that use of computer is vital essential for designing the pattern. vi. Gross Violation of the principles of natural justice in not allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely computerized pattern maker for writing name/drawing pattern on selvedge of fabric, is not eligible for exemption from payment of duty under Notification No.-6/2002 dated 01.03.2002. Further the Ld. AR reiterates the findings given by the lower revenue authorities. 5. After careful examination the facts and perusal of the records and the submissions of both the sides, we are of the view that the appellant has not been allowed cross examination of the persons whose statements/opinions were relied upon to sustain the charges made in the respective Show Cause Notices. The said denial of cross examination is violation of the principles of natural justice. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 2015 (324 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is clear that unless such circumstances exist, the Noticee would have a right to cross-examine the persons whose statements are being relied upon even in quasi judicial proceedings 5.2. Considering the observations of Hon ble Supreme Court (Supra) and of the Hon ble Delhi High Court (Supra) the appeals are remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide the issue denovo in the light of above discussion but after giving necessary opportunity of personal hearing and of cross-examination of the persons, whose statements/opinion were relied upon for sustaining the charges against the appellant. 6. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand in above terms. [ Pronounced in open Court on-28/11/2016 ] - - TaxTMI - TMITax - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
