2011 (9) TMI 567 - AT - Central Excise

Additional Evidences - Held that - if it is germane to the case, the same needs to be considered by adjudicating authority for coming to appropriate conclusion and in our opinion, these should have been produced before adjudicating authority. It is fairly admitted by the ld.Counsel that they have not produced the same due to various compelling reasons, which we are unable to accept. Principles of natural justice - Post cross examination, it is mandatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to grant personal hearing to the assessee to put forth the defense and consider the same before reaching a conclusion - matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of additional evidences not produced before adjudicating authority.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice regarding personal hearing post cross-examination.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous application seeking to introduce additional evidences not presented before the adjudicating authority. The demand of approximately Rs.5.25 crores was confirmed along with penalties. The appellant argued that the additional evidences should be considered or, alternatively, the matter should be remanded for re-consideration based on the new evidences. The Revenue opposed the application, contending that the evidences could have been submitted earlier. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of additional evidence, emphasizing that it should have been presented before the adjudicating authority. However, if the new evidences are relevant to the case, they need not have been submitted earlier for the sake of justice.

2. The Tribunal noted a violation of natural justice principles in the case. The appellant had requested cross-examination of certain individuals, which was partially granted. However, after submitting a detailed reply post cross-examination, the appellant was not granted a personal hearing to present their defense. The Tribunal deemed this as a serious breach of natural justice, emphasizing that the adjudicating authority should have allowed a personal hearing after receiving the detailed reply. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, directing them to dispose of the case within two months while ensuring compliance with natural justice principles and allowing the appellant to produce supporting evidences.

Overall, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, highlighting the significance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case effectively.