2018 (1) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Daman. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that by the impugned order, a total demand of Rs. 56,48,321/- has been confirmed and directed recovery of the said amount from the Appellants namely, M/s Usha Thermosets (Rs.12,54,047.37), M/s Usha Thermosets Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Unibond Industries (Rs.14,67,044.99), M/s Usha Thermosets Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Unisets Industries (Rs.14,95,084.84), M/s Usha Thermosets Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Unique Resin Industries (Rs.14,32,143.80) observing that the four units namely, M/s Usha Thermosets Pvt.Ltd., Valsad, M/s Unibond Industries, Valsad, M/s Unisets Industries, Valsad and M/s Unique Resins Industries, Valsad have wrongly availed SSI exemption Notification No.175/86-CE by resorting to colourful device of frag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... C.C.E., Guntur - 2010 (253) ELT 108 (Tri-Bang.) 4. Per contra, the ld. A.R. for the Revenue on the other hand submitted that the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order recorded his reasoning as to why the relied upon documents were not given again and the cross-examination of the witnesses not allowed. It is his contention that even though the notices were issued to the Appellants way back in 1990 and once it was adjudicated on 30.12.1991 by the Assistant Commissioner, Valsad, and thereafter also, at no stage, the Appellants had advanced the request for supply of the relied upon documents nor requested cross-examination of the witnesses. After many rounds of litigations, requesting for statements and cross-examination of witnesses cannot ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the show cause notice in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Madhusudhan Industries Vs. UOI in SCA No.12135 dated 20.2.2017 when such statements are not available. He submitted that if the statements and other relied upon documents are not available, then the relevant extracts contained in the show cause notice would suffice the purpose and the Tribunal should proceed on the basis of the said extracts contained in the show cause notice, as laid down in the above judgment. 5. In his rejoinder, the ld. Advocate for the Appellants submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Madhusudhan Industries (supra) is not applicable to the present Appeals, inasmuch as no where in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....para 8.3 observed that the CESTAT had not directed in its order dated 5.1.2007 nor the Appellants placed any such requests before the Tribunal for supply of copy of statements as well as for cross-examination of the persons before the adjudicating authority. Also, while denying the cross-examination, the ld.Commissioner observed that the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right, consequently their request to cross-examine the witnesses was disallowed. 8. On going through the 1st show cause notice issued on 5.6.1990, we find that on the basis of the statements of all the persons namely, S/Shri Bharat Desai, Director, A.K. Rao, another Director, Satyanarayn Murthy, a Supervisor, Hitesh B. Rathod and A.S. Patel, allegation of clubbing the ....