TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal sets aside order, remands case for further proceedings, emphasizes witness examination</h1> <h3>M/s Chandravati Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad</h3> M/s Chandravati Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - TMI Issues:- Appeal against Order-in-Original on the issue of natural justice.Analysis:The appeal in this case arises from an Order-in-Original issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, primarily concerning the issue of natural justice. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing industrial and decorative laminates, was subjected to a search/inspection by DGAE, which revealed discrepancies in the supply of laminated sheets to Railways and the local market. The show cause notice alleged clandestine activities, including the supply of laminated sheets of lesser thickness than declared. The appellant contested the notice and requested cross-examination of witnesses relied upon by the Revenue. However, the appellant faced challenges during the adjudication proceedings due to disturbances in the industry, with possession of the factory premises being taken over by PICUP. The appellant's request for cross-examination was denied by the Commissioner, citing difficulties in locating the appellant and its directors. The Tribunal found that the appellant was impeded from proper representation due to the possession of records by PICUP and that the denial of cross-examination lacked sufficient reasons. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand.The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The appellant was directed to file a fresh reply to the show cause notice and a fresh application for cross-examination, providing proper names of witnesses and reasons for cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examination and cross-examination of witnesses in judicial proceedings under the Central Excise Act, citing the Andaman Timber case. The appellant was given 90 days to file their reply and seek a hearing before the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal stressed the need for expeditious disposal of the proceedings, considering the age of the case and the related facts. Assessment records were directed to be returned to the concerned Commissioner through the office of Commissioner, A.R., to facilitate further proceedings.
TaxTMI 