2008 (8) TMI 895 - AT - Central Excise

High Seas Sale - Principles of Natural Justice - Revenue s case mainly based upon the non-entry of transportation trucks at the check posts

Summary

Issues:
- Disposal of stay petitions involving identical issues arising from 3 different impugned orders confirming demands of duties, interest, and penalties against multiple appellants.
- Allegations of wrongful availing of credit of countervailing duty on imported inputs not received by the appellants in their factories.
- Reliance on evidence like non-stamping of lorry receipts, diversion of imported ingots, and clandestine manufacture of final product.
- Appellants' contentions of duty-paid raw material being received, recorded in CENVAT account, and used in final product manufacture.
- Denial of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority.
- Violation of principles of natural justice in passing impugned orders without considering detailed submissions and denying cross-examination.
- Prima facie merits in appellants' submissions for cross-examination and adjudication based on material evidence doubting reliability of statements relied upon by Revenue.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved the disposal of stay petitions related to demands of duties, interest, and penalties against multiple appellants. The issue revolved around the wrongful availing of credit of countervailing duty on imported inputs not received by the appellants in their factories. The Adjudicating Authority relied on evidence such as non-stamping of lorry receipts and diversion of imported ingots to support the allegations. However, the appellants argued that duty-paid raw material was received, recorded, and used in final product manufacture. They raised concerns over the denial of the opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' submissions, highlighting the need for cross-examination to verify the reliability of statements relied upon by the Revenue. It emphasized the importance of offering witnesses for cross-examination, especially when statements are disputed and material evidence questions their correctness. The judgment emphasized the appellants' right to challenge and question the evidence presented against them, ensuring a fair adjudication process. As a result, the stay petitions were unconditionally allowed, impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after cross-examination and consideration of detailed submissions made by the appellants. The appellants were granted the liberty to raise further pleas based on the outcomes of cross-examination, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the case.