TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s J.S. Designer Ltd. filed shipping bills for export of the fabric meant for ladies garments by declaring the value of the overall consignment to be around Rs. 35 crores approximately. The exports were under DEPB scheme. 3. After examination of the goods, Revenue was of the belief that the value declared by the appellant was on the higher side. Accordingly, the consignment was detained and investigations were initiated. During the course of investigations, statements of various persons, who had supp-lied the grey fabric to the appellant, were recorded. Experts opinion were also obtained as also the information filed before the Export Prom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, they have received the entire consideration of the same from their foreign buyer. 7. In view of the above developments, the appellant again made a request for cross-examination of the witnesses before the Adjudicating Authority. The said request of the appellant stands denied by him, by observing as under :- There is no need of cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon as the statements were recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act and had not been retracted so far. No need was felt to call Assistant Director of Textile Committee and Cost Accountants as these were experts of their field and had given their independent opinion when sought, wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11/2/14, wherein appellant was directed to file a summary to show how opportunity of cross-examination shall either vary or modify the adjudication and if so, to what extent since no fundamental submissions are made by Shri Jain as to the need of the cross-examination and justification thereof. Two weeks time was given to the Counsel to file summary on record. Shri Dixit submits that summary has been placed on record by the learned Advocate, which has been sent to the Commissioner for his comments. He submits that they have not received the comments and the matter may be taken after the receipt of the comments by the Commissioner. 9. We find no merits in the above contention of the learned DR. First of all, we note that request for cross-....