2014 (10) TMI 992 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine Removal - principles of natural justice - case of appellant is that they were not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the whole case of the department is based upon the unsigned store register - Held that - When the CEO and the Works Manager themselves admitted to the fact of such clearances as recorded in their own store despatch register. Their contention that they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that violated the principles of natural justice is devoid of merit, more so when their statements were inculpatory and were never retracted. An admitted fact hardly needs to be proved - In the present case, apart from the inculpatory statements evidence in the form of the written record, the godown despatch register is also available. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, duty evasion, inculpatory statements

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal that upheld an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand, interest, and penalties on a company and its officials for duty evasion. The central issue involved the violation of principles of natural justice as the appellants claimed they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The excise officers found a shortfall in branded oil seals stock and recovered a store despatch register showing clandestine clearances without duty payment, resulting in duty evasion. The Works Manager and CEO admitted to clearing oil seals without payment with their knowledge and approval, as recorded in the register. The appellants contended that the case was based on an unsigned store register, but the Tribunal noted that the details were not denied, and the inculpatory statements of the officials were never retracted. The Tribunal emphasized that an admitted fact does not require further proof, especially when supported by written records like the godown despatch register.

The Tribunal analyzed the appellants' argument regarding the violation of natural justice principles and found it lacking merit. It noted that the Works Manager and CEO's inculpatory statements, admitting to the duty evasion, were crucial evidence. The Tribunal highlighted that the officials' admission, coupled with the existence of written records, including the store despatch register, provided substantial proof of the duty evasion. The Tribunal emphasized that the opportunity for cross-examination was not essential when the accused individuals themselves acknowledged the wrongdoing, making the violation of natural justice principles irrelevant in this context.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals lacked merit and dismissed them. The decision was based on the clear admission of the Works Manager and CEO regarding the duty evasion, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal's ruling underscored the significance of inculpatory statements and written records in establishing liability for duty evasion, rendering the appellants' argument regarding the violation of natural justice principles inconsequential in light of the compelling evidence presented during the proceedings.