2011 (5) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., in terms of the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. In addition, penalties stands imposed upon the other appellants who are Vice President, Chairman, Managing Director and two Distributors of the Company.   2. M/s. Unimin India Limited is 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of 100% Spun Bonded Non Woven Polypropylene Fabrics (SBNWPF). The unit obtained advance DTA permission to sell 742 Mts of the said product in the DTA during trial production. The allegation is that the said unit was evading payment of excise duty on the goods cleared for DTA by mis-declaring quantity/ grade and value. This allegation is based on the statements given by Shri Milind Karkhanis, Vice President of the unit, who seemed to have admitted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Managing Director in the said 100% EOU, their request was rejected vide letter dated 02.09.2002. However, cross-examination of investigating officer was allowed and one such officer Shri J.J. Joshi appeared for cross-examination before the adjudicating authority on 11.03.2004. During the course of cross-examination, it transpired that the said Shri Joshi was not the investigating officer. As such, immediately they made a request to produce the investigating officer for cross-examination. Such request was reiterated by them vide their subsequent letters dated 11.03.2004 and 15.03.2004. Thereafter, neither any communication accepting or rejecting their request was made to them nor any date was fixed for personal hearing and the impugned order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision in the case of Sawant Food Products Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 1999 (111) ELT 943 (Tribunal) laying down that the opportunity of final hearing is afforded after the cross-examination of the witness was over, seems to be appropriate. Though, it true that after the cross-examination was over, even the appellants never asked for any further personal hearing. But keeping in view that they were pressing upon the cross-examination of other investigating officers, it can be safely concluded that they were expecting an answer to their request. If the Commissioner was of the view that the such cross examination cannot be afforded, the least expected from the adjudicating officer was to intimate the appellants accordingly and t....