2018 (3) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri R. Balagopal, Consultant - for the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench                  Brief facts are that the respondents are manufacturers of cement. On specific intelligence that the respondents were indulging in evasion of central excise duty by suppressing the actual production of cement and clandestinely removin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidhran appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to permit the adjudicating authority to allow cross-examination of the witnesses. The respondent has not put forth any sufficient reason to justify the plea for cross-examination. As regards the plea for cross-examination, the adjudicating authority has made reasoned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tice. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand relying upon these statements. That the respondents have filed cross-objections and the same may be considered. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The main grievance put forward by the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in remanding the matter for denovo consideration and directing the adjudicating authority to permit the respondent to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X