2008 (4) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Advocate, for the  Respondent  [Order] - These two appeals by the Revenue arising from a common adjudication order and order-in-appeal, were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. On 7.10.98 the officials of Preventive Wing of the Central Excise Department visited the business premises of M/s. R.K. Woollen Mills (respondent in Appeal No. 959/2006) and conducted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the replies of the respondents, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise as the adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand of Rs.2,87,361/- against M/s. Luxmi Processors and   imposed  various penalties  under different  provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules.  He also imposed penalty of Rs.15000/- on M/s. R.K. Woollen Mills for abetting clandestine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rence against both M/s. Luxmi Processors and M/s. R.K. Woollen Mills. However, in the instant case, I am unable to place any reliance on the statement, for, despite request to that  effect, the adjudicating authority declined to allow cross examination of Khajinder Singh, observing that request was made to delay the proceedings.  The statement of Khajinder Singh undisputedly was recorded....