- (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajai Bhanot, appearing for the respondents.
(2.) It is alleged by the Respondents that on receiving intelligence about suppression of production and clandestine removal of the produce from the factory premises without payment of CENVAT by the petitioner, the Preventive Officers, with two independent witnesses, carried out an inspection in which they found shortage of stocks. The officers conducting the inspection examined a supervisor of the petitioner namely Sri Mewal Das who stated that he was not aware of any other place where stocks were kept except the places which he got inspected and accordingly he could not explain the shortage. Subsequently, the petitioner gave the defence that there were two other godowns, which were not inspected by the inspecting team. It is alleged by the petitioner that thereupon the department re-examined Sri Mewal Das who stated before the departmental officers that he had got every place where stock was kept inspected by the inspecting team. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain the shortage. The adjudication proceedings are going on.
(3.) During the proceedings the petitioner moved an application for permission to cross-examine Sri Mewal Das. That application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.7.2006, Annexure-8 to this writ petition. The order says that the request for cross-examination has been turned down by the Commissioner Central Excise Kanpur, and the reasons for the same will be detailed in the adjudication order.;