9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing O.C.No.889/2016 ST-III/1710 dated 1.4.2016 issued by the 4th respondent (Annexure-E) by holding the same as contrary to law and without jurisdiction. b. Direct the respondents not to initiate any coercive action or recovery proceedings against the petitioners to recover any service tax for the period 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2014 without passing order under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. c. Declare that the arrest of the 2nd petitioner by the 5th respondent vide Arrest Memo bearing C No.IV/06/54/2012-13 HPU dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure-G) is illegal and contrary to law and as a consequence thereof, quash the entire proceedings in Case bearing C. No.IV/06-54/2012-13 HPU pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Chief Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,33,73,768/- along with interest. 4. It is the allegation of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner was called by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to his office on 26.4.2016 by threatening of dire consequences, forced him to sign his statement admitting evasion of tax as dictated by him to subordinate officer. As petitioner No.2 refused to sign the statement, he was made to stay late in the night beyond office hours. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 was arrested by respondent No.5 at 9 p.m. on that day and was produced before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore. The learned Magistrate remanded the petitioner No.2 to judicial custody and later on, he was released on conditional bai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to cross examine the respondent No.4 and the petitioner No.2. 7. The learned Senior counsel Sri. Joseph Koorianthara representing the petitioners submitted that the respondent No.4 misinterpreting the law laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal Ahmadabad in the case of Niko Extrusions P. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, VAPI denied the cross-examination. The Tribunal, indeed observed that there cannot be any dispute about the fact that cross examination cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Request for cross examination has to be examined in the context of facts and circumstances of that particular case. However in that case, cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon was permitted. Further, reliance wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1 company were recorded by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (in W.P.No.34990-34991/2016). Petitioner No.2 cannot seek for cross examination of himself. Similarly respondent No.4 is the Superintendent, who is the adjudicating authority, has discharged the statutory functions, exercising the powers vested under the provisions of the Act. 11. In the case of Nico Extrusions Private Limited, supra, the statements of the transporters, owners and the drivers of the said vehicles were recorded. The said statements were in contradiction to the statements of the buyers who had stated to have sold the goods to the appellants therein and the appellants having made the payment by cheque, it was held to be necessary to test the veracity of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
