2015 (10) TMI 866 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - SSi Exemption - Use of other brand name - Held that - As in the connected case 2015 (2) TMI 704 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , matter has already been remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication after affording the cross examination of the dealers whose statement have been relied upon, therefore, in these matters also Revenue s contention cannot be considered at this stage. Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters back to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication after affording the cross examination of the dealers whose statement have been relied upon in the show cause notice and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dropping of duty and penalties by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal where the Revenue challenged the orders dropping the demand of duty and penalties imposed on the respondents by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that in a connected case involving other parties, the matter had been remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after allowing cross-examination of the dealers whose statements were relied upon. Given this, the Tribunal held that a similar approach should be adopted in the present case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after affording the cross-examination of the dealers whose statements were relied upon in the show cause notice. The Tribunal directed that an appropriate order be passed in accordance with the law after the completion of the fresh adjudication process. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of by way of remand.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the right to cross-examination in matters involving allegations based on dealer statements. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for fresh adjudication ensures that the respondents have the opportunity to challenge the evidence against them and present their case effectively. By setting aside the impugned orders and emphasizing the need for due process, the Tribunal upholds the principles of natural justice and fair treatment in adjudicatory proceedings. The directive to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law post the completion of the fresh adjudication process underscores the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring a just and lawful resolution to the dispute at hand. The disposal of the appeals by way of remand signifies the Tribunal's objective of promoting a thorough and fair examination of the issues involved, ultimately aiming for a just and legally sound outcome.