2001 (2) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing to Counsel, Commissioner did not make available copies of documents relied on by him in the order impugned. It is also his case that Commissioner wrongly relied on statements alleged to have been recorded from witnesses who were not made available for cross-examination. Further he argued that the right available to the noticees to have the end-product retested by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory in terms of Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had been wrongly denied. 2. On going through the order passed by the Commissioner it is seen that nowhere in the order he had stated that copies of the documents relied on by him were made available to the party. His stand is that the manufacturer was afforded opportunity to take pho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry value of his statement and how far such statements can be evidence in the case has been dealt with by the Apex Court. Ld. Commissioner; has not followed the decisions of the Apex Court on this aspect. 5. At no point of time, prior to the date of passing of the order impugned in these appeals, Commissioner applied his judicial mind to the issue raised by the noticees regarding non-availability of documents relied upon by the department and failure in summoning witnesses whose statements were sought to be relied on by the Department. Noticees asked for retest of the finished products as contemplated by 56(4) of the Rules, to show that the basis on which the show cause notices were issued do not exist. That statutory right available to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icer is to be summoned for cross-examination. If the Commissioner fails to procure the presence of any witness for cross-examination, the evidentiary value of the statement of such persons must be considered in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court on the point. If the noticees ask for retest of the goods in question that opportunity must be extended. The retest must be at the Central Revenue Control Laboratory and not at private institutions. In the present case if the party opts for cross-examining the expert who conducted the test at the initial stage and not to have retest an opportunity to cross-examine the expert must be extended by the Commissioner. On completing the above direction, Commissioner will adjudicate the issue de....