2011 (12) TMI 527 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Principles of Natural Justice - request for cross-examination was not allowed - The relied upon documents and non-relied documents were also not supplied to the applicants - Held that - the Revenue provided opportunity to the applicants to cross-examine the witnesses but the applicants failed to come forward to cross-examine the witnesses. Opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the applicants but the applicants failed to avail the opportunity. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also financial hardship pleaded by the applicants, the applicants are directed to deposit ₹ 40 lakhs - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
2. Dispute regarding receipt of inputs in the factory of production.
3. Allegations of wrongful credit availed by the applicants.
4. Investigation findings regarding transportation of goods and payment discrepancies.
5. Failure of the applicants to cross-examine witnesses and avail personal hearing opportunities.
6. Financial hardship claimed by the applicants.

Analysis:
1. The applicants contended that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice as they were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses and were not provided with necessary documents. They argued that this hindered their defense, and the order was passed ex-parte. However, the Revenue claimed that the adjudicating authority did allow cross-examination, but the applicants failed to take advantage of this opportunity. The Tribunal noted that the applicants did not avail the chances for personal hearing offered to them, leading to a finding that the order was not passed in violation of natural justice.

2. The main dispute revolved around the receipt of inputs in the factory of production. The applicants asserted that the inputs on which duty was paid were indeed received in their factory. They mentioned that the inputs were manufactured by a specific company and received through a consignment agent, with payment made through cheques. On the other hand, the Revenue presented findings from an investigation that raised doubts about the transportation of goods and the non-clearance of significant cheque amounts, leading to the confirmation of the demand.

3. The Revenue alleged that the applicants wrongly availed credit for inputs not received in their factory. The invoices indicated vehicle numbers used for transportation, but upon investigation, discrepancies were found in the type of vehicles mentioned. Additionally, scrutiny of supplier bank accounts revealed significant cheque amounts not being encashed, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the transactions. The involvement of certain individuals and the closure of a business during the investigation further raised suspicions.

4. The applicants failed to cross-examine witnesses and neglected opportunities for personal hearings provided by the Revenue. Despite claiming financial hardship and being under loss, the Tribunal found that a total waiver of duty, interest, and penalty was not warranted. Instead, the applicants were directed to deposit a specified amount within a timeframe, with the remaining amount waived during the appeal's pendency, subject to compliance reporting.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, providing insights into the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.