TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingh, D.R. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur, upholding the adjudged demand confirmed by the original authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Officers of DGCEI, based on certain intelligence, conducted enquiry with reference to the activities of M/s. Shri Amb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the normal period, as provided in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that the Department has confirmed the adjudged demand against the appellant based on the third party investigation and the appellant had not been provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the concerned persons involved in the activities of clandestine removal of the excisable goods by M/s. Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inform the Department regarding procurement of goods from the alleged supplier M/s. Ambika Steel Pvt. Ltd. Since the Department investigated into the matter and gathered information from such supplier of M/s. Ambika Steel and thereafter issued show cause notice within the stipulated time frame of 5 years, the same in my considered view, is not barred by limitation of time. In this context, the Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Central Excise Department never visited the factory of the appellant for further investigation and the specific request for cross-examination of the concerned persons/witnesses were turned down, though specifically prayed for in the reply to show cause notice, I am of the view that the principle of natural justice have been violated in this case. Thus, this is a fit case for remand to the origin....