TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only basis of issuing the Show-Cause Notice. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to allow cross-examination of the witnesses as requested by the appellants. - Appeal No. E/1234, 1235, 1573, 1624 & 1625/2006 - A/85582-85586/2019 - Dated:- 12-3-2019 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. P ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Vipin K. Jain, Advocate with Shri V.S. Sejpal B.B. Mohite, Advocates for Appellant Shri R.K. Dwivedy, ADC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These appeals are filed against Order-in-Original No. 22- 26/IDG (11) Commr(Adj)/RGD/05-06 dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplies, however, no cognizance had been taken and the learned Commissioner did not allow the cross-examination of the said witnesses, resulting into gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is his further contention that in respect of other suppliers that since there is no evidence in any manner, therefore, the confirmation of demand against such supplies cannot be sustained. Further, he has submitted that during the course of the proceedings before this Tribunal on its direction, the statements of other suppliers which were though recorded but not enclosed with show-cause notice, on the ground being not relied upon, have been produced. It is his contention that all these witnesses have stated before the officers that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter, but it should be total remand for entire supplies and not restricted to only the cases where cross-examination has been requested. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The limited question needs to be answered is whether the appellant had received inputs/raw materials against 579 invoices during the period December, 1999 to June, 2003 involving total credit of ₹ 3,38,67,123/- and also whether there is short payment of duty of ₹ 7,71,594/-. We find that the Revenue tried to establish their case of availment of wrong credit on the basis of the statements of the suppliers of the inputs. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that in few cases the suppliers had incorrectly stated about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
