TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Packaging and a host of officers who are sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating 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 course of an enquiry which are relied upon by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foresaid 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 is examined as a witness for the revenue, it is ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 surveillance of the factory premises of the petitioner, i....