2015 (9) TMI 571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant : Sri Hari Radhakrishnan , Adv., For Sri B Venugopal, Adv For the Respondent : Sri Y Hariprasad, CGSC ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the correspondence dated 3.6.2015 of the Superintendent of Central Excise (Adjn.) Head quarters Office, Bangalore-III, Annexure-F, denying the right to cross examine one Manoj Mitulal, another SohanrajMehta, Srinivasan, Accountant of Champion Packa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, addressed a letter dated 21.10.2009 implicating the petitioner, which letter is not retracted. The revenue having based its claim or laid a foundation on that statement, hence petitioner was entitled to cross examine that person. In addition it is stated that even according to the revenue, as disclosed in the show cause notice, Sohanraj Mehta is said to have made several statements in the cours....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nterest of justice. The word 'court' in the aforesaid statutory provision should be read as a court where a witness is examined and not a statement recorded in an enquiry. Therefore, it is too farfetched for the revenue to contend that the statements made by Sohanraj Mehta in the course of the investigation would tantamounts to statements made in a court. Be that as it may, if Sohanraj Mehta i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioner. 7. It is in the further submission that one Srinivasan, Accountant of Champion Packaging, is a witness to be examined by the petitioner. If that is so, if there is no embargo in law, it is open for the petitioner to make necessary application for issue of summons, so as to examine him as a witness for the petitioner. 8. If Officers of the Central Excise allegedly conducted su....