DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of adjudication of Central Excise dated January 29, 2008.
(2.) Learned senior advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order of adjudication is bad due to violation of the principles of natural justice. He has pointed out that, copies of documents relied upon in the adjudication process were not given to the petitioners in spite of requests thereof. He has referred to an order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner where certain directions were issued by the Writ Court with regard to the documents concerned. He has referred to the impugned order where the adjudicating authority has relied upon the evidences given by co-accused. He has submitted that such deponent was not allowed to be cross-examined. He has relied upon 2015 (322) E.L.T. 462 (Cal.) (Soumendu Saha v. Union of India), All India Reporter 1952 SC 159 (Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh) and (2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 537 : 2009 (233) E.L.T. 157 (S.C.) : 2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.) (Vinod Solanki v. Union of India and Anr.) in support of his contentions.
(3.) Learned senior advocate for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order where it discusses the forensic report. He has submitted that, the forensic report was not made over to the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of such course of action being undertaken by the department. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the forensic expert.;