TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o cross-examination of the witnesses - However, from the list of witnesses, there is no justification in the request of the appellant to cross-examine the officers, participated in investigation. Thus, the appellants be allowed cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon by the adjudicating authority in passing the impugned order. The appellants be allowed cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon by the adjudicating authority in passing the impugned order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/86209 to 86211/13 - A/86839-86841/2018 - Dated:- 8-6-2018 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) None for Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised before him. 2.1 In de novo adjudication, the learned adjudicating authority reconsidered all the arguments and passed the order confirming the demand, interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Learned Advocate, at the outset, submits that even though the Tribunal specifically remanded the matter with an observation that there would be fresh adjudication, the adjudicating authority failed to interpret the same order correctly and denied cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon in the issuance of show-cause notice and also in confirming the demand. He submits that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is that they have not received the quantity of inputs mentioned in seven invoices but availed paper credit of the duty amount shown on these invoices. It is also not in dispute that the Revenue has relied upon the evidences of various witnesses whose statements were recorded during the course of investigation. Further, I find that the entire case is based on statements of witnesses and to ascertain the veracity of such evidences, it is necessarily to be subjected to cross-examination. The Revenue s objection is that since in the first round of litigation, no plea was advanced by the appellant seeking cross-examination of the witnesses, the same cannot be extended to them in the de-novo adjudication. I find that no specific direction was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
