TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sharma, appeared for the appellants and the learned DR, Sh. Murugandi, appeared for the respondents. 3. The question involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 48/89. In terms of the above notification, if the appellant wants the benefit of the same, the appellant should have used 75% of bagasse in the manufacture of paper. Therefore, the sole question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the appellant had used 75% of bagasse in weight, in the production of the paper in question. 4. The learned Counsel contended before us that the impugned order was based on the basis of the certain statements which are recorded by the officers. In this connection, he point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny, who retired long back, who had given a statement to the effect that there was no facility in the lab to test about the contents of bagasse. It was pointed out that the appellants had requested for cross-examination of that person and he was not produced for the cross-examination in order to enable the appellant to show that his statement is not reliable. He therefore pointed out that principles of natural justice is violated. 5. The learned Counsel further contended before us that the best evidence which could have been adduced by the deptt. is as to what is the quantity of bagasse which the appellants have received. He in this connection, pointed out that the deptt. has not made any investigation with respect to the quantity of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purpose of the benefit of the said notification. On the contrary, he pointed out that the statement of some employees who are dismissed were relied upon in the impugned order and the mere statement that lab was not equipped for this test is insufficient to hold that the test report is not the correct. In this connection, he referred us to the finding of adjudicating authority in internal page 40 of adjudication order wherein it was stated that Sh. N.J. Reddy, who was a dismissed employee of the appellant had stated that it is not possible to find out the percentage of bagasse by the chemical examiner. He pointed out that the Collector should have ascertained this position from the chemical examiner and this statement of Sri Reddy could....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their possession. With respect to the cross-examination aspect of Sri Reddy, the learned DR stated that he was not called for crosse-xamination. 8. In a rejoinder, the learned Counsel stated that the letters at exhibit c-16 & c-38 are written by the factory at the specific request of the corporate office to come on record that they were not using bagasse to facilitate taking of loans from the bank who were reluctant to advance monies to the factories which were manufacturing paper out of bagasse as the said factories are suffering losses. 9. We have considered the submissions. We find that the explanation furnished by the appellants with c-16 & c-38 are written for the purpose of above mentioned reasons should be taken note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... If the chemical examiner had not given the percentage of bagasse, then it was for the deptt. to have again sent back the sample with a query to answer the point under issue with respect to the percentage of bagasse in view of the fact that this alone will be the test to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of the notification. Therefore, the lower authority should have called for the records of the chemical examiner to satisfy himself with respect to the test results and whether these could be relied upon for granting exemption. This was not done in this case which again has resulted in the violation of principles of natural justice. On the contrary, relying on the statement of a person who was not called for cross-e....