TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n allowed by way of remand. - R/Special Civil Application No. 14972 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2020 - S.R.Brahmbhatt, A. P. Thaker And R.S. Malek, JJ. Mr KS Nanavati, Senior Counsel with Mr.Kunal Nanavati, Mr.Ayog Doshi and Mr.Pratik Bhatia for Nanavati Associates(1375) for the Petitioner. Mr Ankit Shah(6371) for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Mr. S.R.Brahmbhatt, 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As the question of non-granting of opportunity for cross-examination vitiates the order is covered by umpteen number of judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner urged the Court that on the sole point the petition is required to be disposed of by remanding the matter to the authority for cross-examination. 2. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority brought out ample documentary evidences on record to prove the diversion and the responsible persons of firms, who were having full knowledge about their business, have deposed facts after perusal of these seized documents into their statements admitting their involvement in the diversion of AGU. The demand of cross-examination of the co-noticees is just modus to delay proceedings. In view of the above position the rejection of the request for cross examination of the witnesses does not violate the principles of natural justice. 4. The Court is of the view that the order, which has been rendered is essentially based upon the statements, which have been relied upon by the department, then the persons making those statements we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Central Excise, Ahmedahad II vs. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd., reported in 2017 (345) ELT 520 (Guj), Commissioner of Central Excise Customs vs. Chandan Tubes Metals Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2012 SCC Guj 4917, and Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (334) ELT 302 (Guj) and Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata II, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785, whereby the above decisions clearly upheld right of the affected party to cross examine witnesses irrespective of the fact that he had an opportunity or an access to the material on record. 5. In the instant case, this Court also do not propose to examine any other aspect or merits, else it would not be proper thereafter to remand the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
