DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner challenges an order in original dated October 21, 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the proceedings before the Commissioner of Central Excise stands vitiated since the petitioner was denied the right to cross-examine the witness on behalf of the prosecution in spite of request. He refers to the impugned order and the portion where the request for cross-examination of the witness for the prosecution has been noted and the refusal thereof. He submits that, the cross-examination was refused on the basis that, the evidence of the prosecution witness was taken under Section 108 of the Customs Act. He submits that, Section 108 of the Customs Act does not preclude the witness from being cross-examined.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the revenue submits that, this is the second round of challenge by the petitioner in respect of the proceedings taken by the authorities. He refers to the order dated August 28, 2014 passed in the earlier petition being WP No. 466 of 2014. He refers to the application made by the petitioner consequent to the order dated August 28, 2014. He relies upon (1973) 2 Supreme Court Cases 438 (M/s. Kanungo and Company v. Collector of Customs and Ors.) in support of such contention.;