TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vor of appellant. - Excise Appeals No.50487-50488 of 2017 - A/53647-53648/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 1-6-2017 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri S. Sunil, Advocate for the appellants Shri R.K. Mishra, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appeal is against letter dated 27/02/2017 issued by Superintendent (Adjudication I), in the office of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The said communication is in response to letters sent by the appellant, pursuant to show cause notice dated 23/07/2015 issued to them, requesting among other things cross examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the adjudication. He more specifically referred to final order No.52571 of 2016 dated 23/06/2016 passed by the Tribunal in Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. The Tribunal examined a similar issue of interim communication from the office of Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal after examining the legal provision at length and relying on the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in Ambika International vs. Union of India reported in 2016 TIOL 1238 HC P H CX. , held that the show cause notice issued should be adjudicated on strict compliance of provision of Section 9D of the Act and in accordance with legal principles laid down in para 33 of Ambika International (supra). 3. The learned AR submitted that the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We also note that in a similar situation when the matter came up before the Tribunal the issue was examined at length and direction was given to Original Authority to follow the principles laid down in the said Section and also as elaborated by the Hon ble High Court. Regarding the objection of the Revenue that it is the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority regarding permission to cross-examine the witnesses, we hold that we are not deciding about the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority. All that is required is provisions of Section 9D are to be followed. It has been repeatedly held that when the statement is relied upon the test of Section 9D has to be applied. There is no substantial difference between the proceedings before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
