vide their Order dated 25/5/2006 remanded the matter only to grant the Cross Examination of such persons. He submits that on the ground that the test was conducted by a panel of persons and not by an individual and such persons cannot be made liable to give any evidence under CrossExamination, both the entities have refused the request. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has gone ahead with the adjudication order without granting the cross-examination, which was directed to be given by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submits that even on this count, the OIO passed is legally not sustainable. He further submits that though they have made pleadings towards having received the export proceeds in respect of all the Shipping Bills, this was also not considered nor verified by the Adjudicating Authority before he rejected their Drawback claims. He submits that though the exports have taken place during the period June 2002 to August 2002, the Appellant has been made to run from pillar to post for claiming the Drawback of about Rs.74 lakhs. During the interim period, the Proprietor has expired. The present Appellant has filed the Miscellaneous Petition to substitute her name as the Appellant which was granted by this Bench vide Miscellaneous Order No. 75003/2024 dated 08/01/2024. In view of these submissions, he prays that the present Appeal may be allowed.
