TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals) bearing No.73 dated 26th April, 2017. 2. Shri R.S. Sharma and Shri G.G. Gupta, ld. Advocates appearing for the appellant have submitted that the appellants are engaged in manufacture, repair and trading of various furniture items. The Department vide show cause notice No.5723 dated 22nd April 2014 has alleged that the appellant were found engaged in clandestine procurement of raw-material used in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. wooden furniture and fixtures as that of Sofa set, Double Beds etc. and were clearing the same without accounting for the same in their record without keeping themselves registered with the Central Excise Department. With these allegations a demand of Rs. 17,98,287/- was proposed alongwith the interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case for appellant to be provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the Department witnesses. But no such opportunity was provided. Ld. Counsel has impressed upon a Circular No.1063/2/2018 dated 16.02.2018, which has been issued by the Department with an objective of pending cases to have been expeditiously decided. In the said Circular, the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case Flevel International vs Commissioner of Central Excise [2015-TIOL-2230-HC-DELCX] have been relied upon by the Department directing the Department to follow certain standards before finding a case of clandestine removal. Affording an opportunity for cross-examination to the assessee is impressed upon as a mandate in view of the said Circular, ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees and even by the owner of the appellant firm. It is based on their statement and tallying the same with the other record and also comparing the same with the values as mentioned in the CA Certificate that the adjudicating authority below has rightly confirmed the demand of Order in Original. The original record as brought today specifically the chart of calculation computing the final duty to be levied as Rs. 5,29,405/- is self-explanatory. Accordingly, it is impressed upon that there is no reason for remanding the matter for de novo adjudication. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I observe and hold as follows:- 6. That the entire documents/record as has been produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the record produced by him has been addressed as kachcha parchies and loose records. The said perusal falsifies any sanctity in the grievance of the appellant as far as the record as that of kachcha parchies is concerned. 7. The subsequent emphasis of the ld. Counsel for the opportunity to cross-examination is considered. I opine that no doubt the opportunity of cross-examination is another principle of natural justice and fair play as being a tool to the accused to confront the witness of prosecution/ Department so as to prove the defence/the case of the accused / assessee. But it is the simultaneous proposition of law that the opportunity of cross-examination becomes available to the assessee only after the Department takes a call ....