2018 (12) TMI 1789 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - man-made fabrics/other fabrics - opportunity for cross-examination denied - HELD THAT - As the proceedings arise out of a remand order, we are obliged to ensure that the directions of the Tribunal had been complied with. It would also appear that the entire case having been built on records that were recovered from the possession of persons other than the appellant and the allegations pertain to clandestine production and removal, the veracity of the documents as well as corroboration by those who were examined during the investigation is essential for determination of the outcome of the appeal. Though the adjudicating authority has recorded of lack of diligence on the part of the appellant herein in taking advantage of the opportunity for cross-examination, it is amply clear that the directions of the Tribunal have not been complied with. It would, therefore, be improper on our part to evaluate the findings of an adjudicating authority which has failed to implement the orders of the Tribunal in the light of the deficiencies pointed out by Learned Counsel. Matter remanded back to the original authority for a fresh determination after completion of the cross-examination of the persons whose statements had been recorded - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with Tribunal's directions, Cross-examination, Clandestine clearance of fabrics, Geographical distribution of processors, Veracity of documents, Credibility of statements, Opportunity for cross-examination

In this case, the matter was brought before the Appellate Tribunal for the second time. The Tribunal had previously accepted the plea of M/s Unirose Textile Processors (P) Ltd for certain documents and cross-examination of individuals. While the direction regarding documents was implemented, cross-examination was not carried out as the counsel for the noticee declined. The central excise authorities alleged that the appellant had clandestinely cleared fabrics based on octroi free-passes obtained from a contractor. The noticee claimed that most traders involved were not examined during the investigation. A special procedure for the movement of grey fabrics outside municipal limits was noted, leading to proceedings against the appellant due to non-compliance by traders and processors. The demand was based on recovered records and statements during the investigation.

As the case arose from a remand order, the Tribunal ensured compliance with its directions. The case was built on records recovered from others, necessitating verification and corroboration of documents and statements for determination. The selective acceptance of octroi-free passes' contents and lack of documentation with transporters raised credibility issues. Allegations of suppressed statements and lack of sustainable findings by the adjudicating authority were highlighted. Despite the lack of diligence by the appellant in cross-examination, the Tribunal found non-compliance with its directions, leading to setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh determination post cross-examination completion.

The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with Tribunal directions and conducting proper cross-examination. The credibility and veracity of documents and statements were crucial in determining the outcome. The failure to implement Tribunal orders by the adjudicating authority necessitated setting aside the order for a fresh determination. The case underscores the significance of following procedural requirements and ensuring a fair and thorough examination of evidence before reaching a decision.