2013 (12) TMI 1511 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the imposition of penalty on the appellant for receiving inputs without supplying materials, the delay in filing the appeal, the delivery of the order-in-original to the appellant, and the denial of cross-examination of witnesses by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Imposition of Penalty:
The order-in-original imposed a penalty of Rs. 26,52,698 on the appellant for receiving inputs without supplying materials. The appellant claimed they were unaware of this penalty until 2012 when informed by the Superintendent of Central Excise. They then obtained a copy of the impugned order and filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay. The appellant disputed the delivery of the order-in-original, alleging that the witnesses to the mahazar were not independent and sought cross-examination to prove the delay in receiving the order. The Tribunal found that the cross-examination of witnesses should have been allowed for justice and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

Delivery of Order-in-Original:
The appellant contested the delivery of the order-in-original, claiming it was pasted on their premises in 2008 without their knowledge. They argued that the witnesses to the mahazar were not independent as they were connected to the Central Excise Department. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of clarity on the distance witnesses can be taken from the locality but found that the witnesses were not solely dependent on the Central Excise department. However, the Tribunal held that cross-examination of witnesses should have been allowed to establish the actual delivery date of the order-in-original.

Denial of Cross-Examination:
The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the appellant the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses to the mahazar, leading to the appellant losing the chance to prove the delay in receiving the order-in-original. The Tribunal opined that cross-examination should have been allowed as it was crucial in determining the timeliness of the appeal filing. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to permit cross-examination and decide the case afresh.