2008 (2) TMI 768 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Failure to consider evidence, Discrepancies in documents, Onus of proof on Revenue

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore dealt with the violation of Principles of Natural Justice by the Original authority. The appellants had purchased melting scrap of iron for manufacturing steel castings, with the allegation that the item had been sold in Chennai. However, the appellants contended that they had utilized it in the manufacture of final products. Despite producing substantial evidence, including RG 23A Register, 57AE (4) Statement, RT 12 statement, and transporter's vouchers, the Original authority did not consider these documents in the impugned orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) also did not give any finding on the documents produced. The witnesses had retracted their earlier statements, and based on these retractions, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order, leading to a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

The learned DR argued that the appellants failed to avail the opportunities granted to them, and there were discrepancies in the documents produced. He contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order based on admissions made by witnesses and transporters, which were deemed sufficient to establish the Revenue's case. On the other hand, the appellants' Counsel submitted that the transporter's statement was not recorded, and the onus to discharge the liability lay on the Revenue, which had not been fulfilled. The Counsel relied on various judgments to support their arguments.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal observed that the appellants had presented voluminous records to prove the utilization of imported scrap in the final products. These documents were produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) but were not referenced or considered in the impugned order. As the Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on retracted statements without considering the evidence, it was deemed a violation of Natural Justice. The matter was thus remanded to the Original authority for reevaluation. The appellants were instructed to present the records to establish their case, and the Original authority was directed to decide the matter within five months from the date of receipt of the order, ensuring a fair hearing and a speaking order. The stay applications and appeals were remanded for de novo consideration to the Original authority.