TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HS also along with M/s. Anand - this is an error apparent on the face of record which requires rectification - rectification allowed. Rectification also sought on the ground that Shri Natarajan was not allowed to be cross-examined and therefore the statement cannot be relied - Held that:- By mistake, the Tribunal has wrongly observed that cross-examination of Shri Natarajan was not allowed - Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very same impugned order. 2. On behalf of the appellant/assessee Shri G. Natarajan, ld. counsel submitted that though in para6, the duty demand in respect of clearances made to M/s. NHS was set aside by the Tribunal, in para 7 of the impugned order, while confirming the duty demand in respect of clearances made to M/s.Anand by the appellant M/s. DSRM, the Tribunal has wrongly stated that the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-in-Original and submitted that the appellant had not requested for cross-examination of Shri Natarajan and therefore the said observation in the impugned order is an error apparent on the face of record. 4. Heard both sides. 5. We first address the error mentioned by the ld. counsel for the appellant / assessee. In para6, the Tribunal has set aside the demand of duty in respect of clearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Shri Natarajan. That even by the provisions laid down in Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944, the statement given by Natarajan cannot be admitted in evidence without examining him as a witness which is the ratio laid down in the decisions by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of J.K. Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 2009 (242) ELT 189 (Del.) which has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
