TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of opportunity for cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements are relied upon by the authority, is against the principles of natural justice and vitiates the order impugned. He also submitted that in view of umpteen number of judgments to the effect that non-granting of opportunity for cross-examination vitiates the order, present petition may be disposed of by remanding the matter to the authority for cross-examination. 3. Shri Ankit Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the said question of cross-examination vitiating the order is in fact covered by the number of judgments, which have been cited on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Present petition has been taken out under Article 22....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the premise that the demand for cross-examination of co-noticees was just modus for delaying the proceedings as the same is evident from the observations of the authority passing the order at page 118, which is set out herein below:- "In light of above facts I find that the investigating authority brought out ample documentary evidences on record to prove the diversion and the responsible persons of firms, who were having full knowledge about their business, have deposed facts after perusal of these seized documents into their statements admitting their involvement in the diversion of AGU. The demand of cross-examination of the co-noticees is just modus to delay proceedings. In view of the above position the rejection of the request for c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on arose in the context of subject petition and the prayer made about grant of permission of cross examination of witnesses and after referring to settled proposition of law so held in the case of Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Union of India, reported in 2016 (339) ELT 364 (Guj), Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedahad II vs. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd., reported in 2017 (345) ELT 520 (Guj), Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs vs. Chandan Tubes & Metals Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2012 SCC Guj 4917, and Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (334) ELT 302 (Guj) and Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata II, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785, whereby the above decisions clearly upheld right of the affecte....