Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)Section 138 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015
xvi. The demand has been confirmed solely on the basis of
statements of partner / employees of M/s Alcon Wires. Firstly,
the all four persons retracted from their statements immediately
stating that the statements were forcibly taken by the visiting
staff. Secondly, The Adjudicating Authority did not allow the
cross-examination of the said witnesses rather, specifically
rejected the request of cross. Thus, in terms of judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber
Industries Vs. CCE, Kolkata-II - 2015 (324) ELT 641 (S.C.), the
Order in Original becomes a nullity and statement cannot be
relied upon.
Section 37 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 1999
Section 68 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Cce, Delhi-Iii vs M/S. Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd on 30 September, 2015
12. We further take a note of the fact that in most of the cases,
there is a entry at Information Collection Centre (ICC) of the state
VAT, which show that the goods have been passed through ICC and
reached to the factory of the appellant. Moreover, no cross
41
E/60940,60997,61016-61025,61033-61034,
61039-61040/2019/2019
examination of the persons whose statements have been relied upon
were granted cross examination, neither their statements have been
taken in compliance to the provisions of Section 9D of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 as held by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi-I
vs. Kuber Tobacco Industries. reported in 2016 (338) ELT 113
(Tri. Del.) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:-