TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra These appeals are filed against OIO No. 21/Commission/RKS/AHD-II/2008 dated 17.11.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Asiatic Colourchem Industries Ltd., an 100% EOU, was engaged in the production of Dyes Intermediates. It was alleged that they had imported and procured indigenous raw materials for manufacture of finished products for export, but instead of said use, diverted the same cladestinely to the local market. Consequently, on completion of investigation, demand notice was issued to the appellant and other co-notices demanding central excise duty of Rs. 31,08,581/- and Customs duty of Rs. 56,29,902/- with pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Mulchand M. Zaveri & 1 vs. Union of India & 1 2016 (4) TMI 1074. 4. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). It is his contention that the diversion of raw materials could be established against the appellant on independent evidences collected by the department. Further, he has contended that there was no basis by the appellant requesting cross examination of the officers who had carried out the investigation and hence the Commissoner has rightly rejected their request for cross-examination. 5. In his rejoinder, Ld. Advocate for the appellant made it clear that the appellant are not interested in pursuing the cross examination of officers who i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the adjudicating authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned....