2016 (12) TMI 919

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M/s Sumatex Services (P) Ltd. is in appeal against the OIO no. 39/2008/CE dated 16.09.2008. In these two appeals, the issue is common, which is- whether the machine named as computerized pattern maker manufactured by the appellant is computerized or mechanical ? 2. The appellant has been represented by ld. Advocates S/s Hemant Bajaj, Vipul Agarwal and Revenue has been represented by ld. AR, Sh. Amresh Jain. 3. The ld. Advocates for the appellant based on the appeal memoranda and the written submissions inter alia submit as follows:- i. The Computerized pattern maker machine uses a software, which with the help of a computer, would draw complex patterns. The software is part of the machine and is sold along with it, as evident....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t requested for cross-examination of the various persons. However, the same was not granted to the Appellant on the ground that the statements are corroborated by expert opinions. vii. Department has wrongly concluded that the impugned machine not computerized- It is submitted that the entire case of the Department is based on the finding that the impugned machine is not computerized and therefore the exemption available to computerized pattern maker cannot be extended to the machines in dispute. The basic function of the computerized machine is to automatically generate an output when certain input is fed into it. The machines in dispute also, reads the data from Mylar film, process the inputs and automatically produces an output ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected 5.1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Basudev Garg vs. Commissioner of Customs  2013 (294) E.L.T. 353 (Del.). inter alia observes as under: 14. The Division Bench also observed that though it cannot be denied that the right of cross-examination in any quasi judicial proceeding is a valuable right given to the accused/Noticee, as these proceedings may have adverse consequences to the accused, at the same time, under certain circumstances, this right of cross-examination can be taken away. The court also observed that such circumstances have to be exce....