The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand together with interest confirmed against the assessees and imposition of penalty.

2. The lower appellate authority has set aside the demand and penalty on the ground that the remand order i.e., Final Order No. 996/2009, dated 7-8-2009, had not been implemented inasmuch as cross-examination of Shri C.N. Ramesh, Manager of M/s. Obliraja Textiles (P) Ltd., was not given.

3. I have heard both sides. In the final order cited supra, the Tribunal has held that the submission of Shri C.N. Ramesh is crucial for the confirmation of the demand against the appellants and, therefore, he should have been allowed to be cross-examined. The Bench set aside the earlier impugned order and remitted the case to the original authority to decide the matter afresh giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees and allowing cross-examination of Shri C.N. Ramesh, M/s. Obliraja Textiles (P) Ltd. Post remand, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise once again confirmed the demand and imposed penalty and as regards cross-examination of Shri C.N. Ramesh, he held that sincere and all out efforts and steps have been taken to secure the presence of Shri C.N. Ramesh but cross-examination was not possible in the absence of any information of whereabouts of Shri C.N. Ramesh, there was no option but to pass the same order as earlier passed, namely, by confirming the demand and imposing penalty. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has set aside the order of adjudication on the ground that in the absence of cross-examination of Shri C.N. Ramesh, principles of natural justice were violated. The learned DR points out that before the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the present impugned order, the Revenue was not heard. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the direction given in the remand order by the Tribunal was not implemented for whatever reason. The remand order of the Tribunal does not stand modified in any manner. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in his finding that non-implementation for the remand order has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)