TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls, viz. No. E/77/2010-Mum filed by M/s Sona Textiles and Appeal No. E/344/2010-Mum filed by M/s S.R. Roadways Pvt Ltd. Therefore, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we have taken up all the appeals for final hearing. 2. In the appeal filed by the main party, namely M/s Sona Processors, the challenge is against demand of duty of over Rs 4.5 crores for the period from October 1996 to July 98, a fine of Rs 1 lakh imposed in lieu of confiscation of plant, machinery etc and a penalty equal to duty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.The impugned demand of duty is on processed fabrics which were found to have been clandestinely removed by the said party during the said period. In the remaining appeals, including Appeals E/77/10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds including chits seized from the premises of M/s Sona Textiles under Panchnama dated 31.10.1998 (Exhibit 'E6' to SCN refers); (iv) The Sale Registers seized from the premises of M/s Vinod Textiles, M/s Ashirwad Textiles, M/s Kamal Textiles and M/s Rose Textiles (Exhibit 'E8' to SCN refers); (v) The documents including chits seized from the premises of M/s Deepak Textiles (Exhibit 'E12' to SCN refers); (vi) The Sale Registers seized from the premises of M/s Deepak Textiles and M/s Sachi Synthetics (Exhibit 'E13' to SCN refers); (vii) The records/Sales Registers seized from the premises of trading firms of Shri Bharat Shah (Exhibit 'E15' to SCN refers); (viii) The documents/records seized from the premises of M/s S.R. Roadways Pvt Ltd,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tend the proceedings of 16.7.2009 on account of his pre-occupation with a Budget-related programme. He, therefore, requested the Commissioner to fix another date for cross-examination of the witnesses. The learned counsel today points out that this request was not acceded to and that there is no valid reason stated by the Commissioner. On the whole, according to the counsel, natural justice was once again denied to M/s Sona Processors and, moreover, the learned Commissioner did not apply his mind to the available evidentiary materials before taking a final view on the question whether M/s Sona Processors were required to pay the amount of duty demanded in the show-cause notice. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner chose to reiterat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....note that, in a letter dated 26.11.2008, the advocate had requested for cross-examination of the following witnesses named by the above party: 1. Shri Shailesh Haraniya (Sr. No. 32 of Ann. 'C' to SCN); 2.Shri Bharat P. Shah (Sr No. 33 of Ann. 'C' to SCN); 3. Shri Ev Shravan Harit (Sr. No. 34 of Ann.'C' to SCN); 4. Shri Subhash Ragunath Bharti (Sr No. 36 of Ann.'C' to SCN); 5. Shri Sajjan K. Rungta (Sr. No. 38 of of Ann.'C' to SCN); 6. R.N. Pandey, SIO, DGAE, Zonal Bench, Mumbai; 7. Shri S. Sukumaran, SIO, DGAE, Zonal Bench, Mumbai; 8. Shri A.R. Gadre, SIO, DGAE, Mumbai; 9. Shri M.S. Mohankrishnan, SIO, DGAE, Mumbai. The witnesses named at serial Nos (1) to (5) are said to be persons from whom statements were recorded under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has stated reasons why further opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not given. In the interest of justice, a further reasonable opportunity should be given to M/s Sona Processors to cross-examine the witnesses. It has been submitted by the learned counsel today that the officers and other witnesses have to be confronted with the documents yet to be supplied. If this is true, it is for M/s Sona Processors to state clear and good reasons before the adjudicating authority as to why such witnesses must be cross-examined with reference to such documents. After receiving those documents from the Commissioner's office, the party should state such reasons to the learned Commissioner. Of course....