2016 (9) TMI 1174 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of seized SS Ingots - Recovery of Central Excise duty - confirmation of demand was drawn from certain private records recovered from the premises of the appellant unit and various statements given by the Director, Authorized Signatory, Gate Keeper of the appellant unit and other persons like transport drivers etc. - denial of cross examination - violation of principles of natural justice as due opportunity not being extended to the appellants to defend their case Held that - as seen from the findings of the Original Authority the charge against the appellants regarding clandestine production and removal are considered to be supported by recovery of parallel set of invoice, private records, confessional statements of transporters, confessional statement of various concerned persons and inquiries conducted at various ends. It is apparent that the statements of various persons have been relied upon to draw the conclusion. In other words, the case is not only based on documents. Necessarily in such situation the appellants should have an opportunity to clarify their side by cross examining the persons who gave statement relied upon. This legal position has been fairly well settled by the Hon ble Punjab& Haryana High Court in a recent decision in the case of G-Tech Industries vs. UOI 2016 (6) TMI 957 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT . We consider it proper to remand the matter back to the Original Authority to follow the procedure set out in Section 9d of the Act and also follow guidelines as explained by the Punjab & Haryana High Court (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the original authority for the decisions afresh. Due opportunity shall be given to the appellant to defend their case including personal hearing. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty demand and penalties by the Original Authority.
2. Allegation of clandestine production and removal of goods.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of cross-examination.
4. Admissibility of evidence based on statements in adjudication proceedings.
5. Remand of the matter back to the Original Authority.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case pertains to the confirmation of duty demand and penalties by the Original Authority against the appellant for allegedly clearing goods without payment of Central Excise duty. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of SS Ingots, was subjected to investigations and proceedings based on verifications, records, and statements of various individuals associated with the appellant.

2. The allegation of clandestine production and removal of goods formed a crucial part of the case against the appellant. The Original Authority relied on private records, confessional statements of transporters and other individuals, and inquiries to support the charge. The appellant challenged the order on the grounds of lack of opportunity to cross-examine the individuals whose statements were used as evidence.

3. The appellant contended that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice due to the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon. The appellant argued that the reliance on statements without allowing for cross-examination was a violation of their rights and cited various case laws to support their position.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged the legal position that in cases where evidence is based on statements, the appellant should have the opportunity to clarify their side through cross-examination. Referring to a decision by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the case of Kuber Tobacco India Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the procedure set out in Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when relying on statements as evidence in adjudication proceedings.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to follow the procedure outlined in Section 9D of the Act and the guidelines provided by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant was granted the opportunity for a fresh decision, including a personal hearing, to defend their case adequately.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed in the case and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the Original Authority for a reevaluation following the prescribed legal procedures.