TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k Cart was loaded in the factory premises of the appellants and it was carrying the document showing that it was loaded from M/s. Sadguru Steel Agency. Thereafter, the premise of the appellants was searched and recovered various incriminating documents, the consignment was seized and the statements were recorded. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued. On adjudication, a duty demand of Rs. 2,70,721/- was confirmed by the Commissioner and he ordered appropriation of the amount already paid. Demand of irregular credit amounting to Rs. 1,62,821/- and Rs. 1,38,593.40 availed by the appellants were also confirmed. However, an amount of Rs. 1,38,593.40 already paid by the appellants was ordered to be appropriated and seized goods were confis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the statement of Shri Ganpat Shinde and disallowed the CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,62,821/- and imposed penalty of Rs. l lakh on M/s. Krishna Steel Industries and Rs. 10,000/- on Shri S.M. Shedji, partner of M/s. Krishna Steel Industries and ordered the confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery etc. with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants are before me. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that despite the direction given by this Tribunal, the cross-examination of Shri Ganpat Shinde be allowed. Shri Ganpat Shinde did not appear before the adjudicating authority for cross-examination and on the basis of his earlier statement, which was not corroborat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicate the case. To support his contention, he placed reliance on Sridhar Paints Co. P. Ltd. v. CCE & Cus., Hyderabad-III - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 514 (Tri.-Bang.), wherein it was held that denial of cross examination of witnesses/officers is not a violation of the principals of natural justice. Further, he relied on Beauty Dyers v. CCE, Chennai - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 339 (Tri.-Chennai), wherein it was held cross-examination and non-availability of witnesses for cross-examination is not a fatal flaw when the findings are based on documents about which there is no credible explanation and nothing on record to show statements not voluntary or effectively retracted within close proximity of the time these were detained. 4. Heard both sides. 5. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cross-examination sought by the appellants and thereafter determine the issue following the principles of natural justice. Further, I find that in the remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority granted the cross-examination of Shri Ganpat Shinde and the cross-examination of the Assistant Commissioner was not found to be justified as the past statement dated 20-8-96 of Shri Ganpat Shinde recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and on the basis of physical verification of address of M/s. Chavan Traders and National Scrap Traders and the same communicated to the appellant. In the adjudication, it is found that copies of concerned enquiry report have already been furnished to the notice. Cross-examination of Shri S.C. Mank....