TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (5) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant. Shri T.D. Bodade, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, confirming a demand for duty of Rs. 1,89,335/- issued to the appellant on the ground of shortage of fabrics processed by it. 2.  The stocks in the premises of the appellant were verified by the departmental officers fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecording as short in the panchanama were actually in the premises. 3. We are unable to accept this contention. The verification of the stock went on for seven days continuously. There is absolutely no material to support the contention that the plea for reverification of the stock was not considered. On the contrary the panchanama dated 10 and 11-2-1991 itself records the request made by H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use notice does not cast doubts on their independence. No specific request was made for their cross-examination. A sentence in the reply to the notice to the effect that the appellant "reserves the right to cross-examine the witnesses and the officers" is far short of a specific request for cross-examination. It is significant that no such grievance was pointed out to the Collector at the hearing ....